Polygamy question

[Jason]

Your guess is as good as mine. It's all good until something seems contrary to the current state of the evidence or doesn't fit the theory that apologists need it to fit, and then it's just they were speculating/their opinion/not doctrine/prophet is only a prophet blah blah blah.

I'll grant you that apologists do this at times, and it bugs me too.

When the Lord says He is bound, He is bound. Note that there is no time limit, however.

[Darth J]

I'll grant you that apologists do this at times, and it bugs me too.

When the Lord says He is bound, He is bound. Note that there is no time limit, however.

For example, when Lorenzo Snow went down to St. George and told the members that if they paid their tithing, the Lord would open the windows of heaven............six millions years from now.

[William Schryver]

I have an electronic database of church books, the 1996 LDS Collector's Library by Infobases, Inc. One of the books in that database is John Widtsoe's Evidences and Reconciliations. In part XII he clears up a number of misconceptions about polygamy. He first refutes the misconception that polygamy was instituted because there were more women than men in the early church (in fact there were less women than men). I already knew this, no surprises there. Then, a few paragraphs later, he writes:

Another conjecture is that the people were few in number and that the Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there was no surplus of women.

This never occurred to me, even though I knew there weren't more women than men but it is, in fact, obvious that polygamy does not result in more progeny because it doesn't change the number of fertile women. That also means, however, that the reason for polygamy given in the BoM - to raise up seed unto God - is faulty.

After clearing up all common misunderstandings, Widtsoe is left with only one explanation:

The simple truth and the only acceptable explanation, is that the principle of plural marriage came as a revelation from the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith for the Church.

While this is an explanation, it does not provide a reason why God might have commanded it. The only reason I am left with, therefore, is the one from anthropology, i.e. that a large number of wives is a tribal status symbol, a sign of power and wealth. This explanation fits very well with the fact the polygamy was mainly practised by church leaders and less so by the general membership.

I readily admit that the misunderstanding that polygamy was commanded to raise up seed was entirely mine but I still find it shocking that there is, then, absolutely no good reason whatsoever for polygamy except that God commanded it. I have a very hard time with this. Thoughts anyone?

The answer is, in my opinion, quite obvious. Plural marriage was instituted in order to greatly increase the number of offspring from a specific group of men, chosen by virtue of their long-established and clearly attested faithfulness. The descendants of that group of men continue to constitute a core strand of strength and faithful vitality in the Church to this very day.

[Diogenes]

It seems that President Hinckley cleared this matter up in is interview with Larry King when asked his opinion about Polygamy and I quote

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

So, fascinating to see that 160 years later, President Hinckley reaches the same conclusion that William Law reached in the Nauvoo Expositor--"it ain't doctrinal"

So then what is IT actually?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It seems that President Hinckley cleared this matter up in is interview with Larry King when asked his opinion about Polygamy and I quote

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

So, fascinating to see that 160 years later, President Hinckley reaches the same conclusion that William Law reached in the Nauvoo Expositor--"it ain't doctrinal"

So then what is IT actually?

I dont ever remember GBH saying that it aint doctrinal. CFR please.

[tictac]

I dont ever remember GBH saying that it aint doctrinal. CFR please.

This was during GBH's Larry King interview. If you google the quote above, you'll find plenty of references.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This was during GBH's Larry King interview. If you google the quote above, you'll find plenty of references.

He is correct that as a practice right now it is not doctrinal, as it has been revealed in our cannon of scripture to not be practiced. One day it could be doctrinal again and that is when it will be practiced. I needed to see the quote in context. It tells a little different story then just the one sentence quoted. Thanks.

[Jason]

For example, when Lorenzo Snow went down to St. George and told the members that if they paid their tithing, the Lord would open the windows of heaven............six millions years from now.

Or the next day. Whichever best served the Lord's purposes and the members to whom He made His promise.

[kamenraider]

Here's the full quote (from an interview on Larry King Live on September 8, 1998) in context:

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

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.

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.

Larry King: Should there be arrests?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It's matter of civil procedure. The church can't do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever.

Larry King: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It's a civil offense. It's in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We're totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that's a responsibility of civil officers.

Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It's outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.

Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying -- they told "The Salt Lake Tribune" -- that it's difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it's secretive. There's a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty -- they say they do, in gathering evidence.

Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you're forceful here tonight, but maybe -- they've been saying that it's rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know. We'll consider it.

Larry King: I'm giving you an idea.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

Larry King: Would you look better if you were...

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

Just a few months prior was when the teenage girl from the Kingston polygamy group was whipped by her father for not wanting to marry her uncle, so "IT" here refers to polygamy as practiced by unauthorized cultists.

I wouldn't expect the Church to recognize even authorized polygamists though. It didn't in Joseph Smith's day; for example, he published this notice in the Times and Seasons newspaper in Feb. 1844: "As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hyram Brown, has been preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges." The 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants also contained this statement "Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again." Joseph Smith also gave William Clayton this advice about keeping his plural wife at home: "Says he, 'Just keep her at home and brook it and if they raise trouble about it and bring you before me I will give you an awful scourging and probably cut you off from the Church and then I will baptize you and set you ahead as good as ever'." (William Clayton Journal, Oct. 19, 1843)

[LeSellers]

It seems that President Hinckley cleared this matter up in is interview with Larry King when asked his opinion about Polygamy and I quote

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal.

You're entitled to read this as you will, but I believe you are not getting the thrust of President Hinckley's statement.

It's the current practice of plural marriage that is not doctrinal. That's what Official Declaration 1 (aka the "Manifesto") is/was all about (in conjunction with the "Little Manifesto").

However, doctrine and Covenants, section 132, is still definitive doctrinally. It is clear that plural marriage, per se, is still doctrinal, but the practice of that principle is not.

So, fascinating to see that 160 years later, President Hinckley reaches the same conclusion that William Law reached in the Nauvoo Expositor--"it ain't doctrinal"

Sorry, President Hinckley did not reach the same conclusion at all. As he said later, he knows what LDS Church doctrine is, and your misunderstanding of what he meant does not make your position accurate.

So then what is IT actually?

It is doctrine. Read Section 132 for clarification.

Lehi

[S.Ferreira]

So the glory of God is intelligence, and it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance (that was just Joseph Smith's opinion and/or they wrote it down wrong!).

But the God who is saving us give us rules we can't understand for no apparent reason.

Why is it that this argument seems to say, "if only God made all things known to me, then I could believe." If only..., then.... If only Joseph had had children from his plural marriages, then I could believe he was a true prophet and obeying God in this thing.

I suppose I

[Ariarates]

The answer is, in my opinion, quite obvious. Plural marriage was instituted in order to greatly increase the number of offspring from a specific group of men, chosen by virtue of their long-established and clearly attested faithfulness. The descendants of that group of men continue to constitute a core strand of strength and faithful vitality in the Church to this very day.

I agree that this is the most obvious interpretation of the reason the BoM gives for polygamy (other posters lean in this direction as well).

Interestingly, this interpretation also fits the anthropological explanation for polygamy (a status symbol for the rich and powerful within a group). This seems to imply that regardless of the source of Mormon polygamy (revelation), the pratice was identical to the way polygamy has been generally practiced for centuries by various peoples and cultures all over the world.

So what was the revelation for in the first place? Just to get the ball rolling? I think it's safe to assume that Joseph Smith (or any of his close associates) didn't have sufficient anthropological knowledge to purposefully introduce polygamy as a means to solidify the church hierarchy.

Is there any literature on this aspect of Mormon polygamy that anyone knows of?

[thesometimesaint]

Ariarates:

JS makes reference to the practice in the Bible as the motivation to ask God about it.

[Diogenes]

Thank you one and all for clearing up the President Hinckley quote that Polygamy is "doctrinal" but when he says it is NOT doctrinal he just means now? Do I have it right?

So here are my follow up questions:

DC 132 gives doctrinal basis for polygamy and defines fairly clearly how it works and what it consists of, but then

1. Does this doctrine also cover polyandry?

2. Did Joseph and others practice polyandry?

3. And if polyandry is not covered in DC 132 then where is it declared "doctrinal"?

Can someone provide a straight forward answer to these questions and if so, please provide official statement and/or scripture? It would help immensely with those I am working with...

thank you.

[William Schryver]

I agree that this is the most obvious interpretation of the reason the BoM gives for polygamy (other posters lean in this direction as well).

Interestingly, this interpretation also fits the anthropological explanation for polygamy (a status symbol for the rich and powerful within a group). This seems to imply that regardless of the source of Mormon polygamy (revelation), the pratice was identical to the way polygamy has been generally practiced for centuries by various peoples and cultures all over the world.

So what was the revelation for in the first place? Just to get the ball rolling? I think it's safe to assume that Joseph Smith (or any of his close associates) didn't have sufficient anthropological knowledge to purposefully introduce polygamy as a means to solidify the church hierarchy.

Is there any literature on this aspect of Mormon polygamy that anyone knows of?

(Re: the bolded part above):

What part of the most relevant part of my reply ("... chosen by virtue of their long-established and clearly attested faithfulness") did you find difficult to comprehend?

Or did you simply deliberately ignore it in order to proceed directly to the next step in your agenda?

[Jason]

Interestingly, this interpretation also fits the anthropological explanation for polygamy (a status symbol for the rich and powerful within a group). This seems to imply that regardless of the source of Mormon polygamy (revelation), the pratice was identical to the way polygamy has been generally practiced for centuries by various peoples and cultures all over the world.

Actually, I think there is a pretty clear difference between using polygamy as "a status symbol for the rich and powerful" and the LDS intent of "raising up righteous seed".

[Darth J]

Why is it that this argument seems to say, "if only God made all things known to me, then I could believe."

I think it seems that way to you because D&C 89 gives a specific reason for the Word of Wisdom that current Mormon culture disregards in favor of "it's about obedience" or "you're more spiritual," which has absolutely no support in either the scriptures or the experiences of church leaders and members prior to Heber J. Grant imposing temperance on temple recommend holders.

If only..., then.... If only Joseph had had children from his plural marriages, then I could believe he was a true prophet and obeying God in this thing.

If only Joseph Smith had practiced plural marriage the way it was revealed to him in D&C 132, then it would be more plausible that he was obeying God in this thing.

I suppose I

[Darth J]

(Re: the bolded part above):

What part of the most relevant part of my reply ("... chosen by virtue of their long-established and clearly attested faithfulness") did you find difficult to comprehend?

Or did you simply deliberately ignore it in order to proceed directly to the next step in your agenda?

Will, did Joseph Smith practice polygamy according the conditions revealed to him in D&C 132? Yes or no?

[LeSellers]

Thank you one and all for clearing up the President Hinckley quote that Polygamy is "doctrinal" but when he says it is NOT doctrinal he just means now? Do I have it right?

No.

It is doctrinal, and has been ever since the revelation of the principle was received.

What is not doctrinal is its practice now.

Separating the two, the concept (doctrinal) and the practice (counter doctrinal unless explicitly approved, as it is not now), is the issue.

Lehi

[Ariarates]

What part of the most relevant part of my reply ("... chosen by virtue of their long-established and clearly attested faithfulness") did you find difficult to comprehend?

Or did you simply deliberately ignore it in order to proceed directly to the next step in your agenda?

No agenda, no need to get all excited.

Polygamy was primarily practised by LDS church leaders. I said that, you said that in different words and anthropologists say that about polygamy in general. Where's the difference? Don't you think most polygamous societies consider their "ruling class" to be somehow extra deserving of multiple wives?

[Jason]

Polygamy was primarily practised by LDS church leaders. I said that, you said that in different words and anthropologists say that about polygamy in general. Where's the difference? Don't you think most polygamous societies consider their "ruling class" to be somehow extra deserving of multiple wives?

What if the "ruling class" are actually more capable husbands and parents?

[Ariarates]

What if the "ruling class" are actually more capable husbands and parents?

Yes, what if? It's a difficult proposition, though. First, you would have to establish what constitutes "capable husbands and parents". Second, you would have to show that polygamous leaders are more capable than monogamous parents and that this increased capability is due mainly to polygamy. This possibility has been raised earlier in this thread but so far, I have not seen any supportive evidence for this assumption.

Without such data, I would think that large (polygamous) families are less likely to meet the needs of each individual family member than small, nuclear families. This is common sense: a man can only make so much money and spend so much time with his family. If these resources have to be divided over a larger number of people (more wives, more children and leadership duties), each individual gets less.

[dougtheavenger]

I have an electronic database of church books, the 1996 LDS Collector's Library by Infobases, Inc. One of the books in that database is John Widtsoe's Evidences and Reconciliations. In part XII he clears up a number of misconceptions about polygamy. He first refutes the misconception that polygamy was instituted because there were more women than men in the early church (in fact there were less women than men). I already knew this, no surprises there. Then, a few paragraphs later, he writes:

Another conjecture is that the people were few in number and that the Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there was no surplus of women.

This never occurred to me, even though I knew there weren't more women than men but it is, in fact, obvious that polygamy does not result in more progeny because it doesn't change the number of fertile women. That also means, however, that the reason for polygamy given in the BoM - to raise up seed unto God - is faulty.

After clearing up all common misunderstandings, Widtsoe is left with only one explanation:

The simple truth and the only acceptable explanation, is that the principle of plural marriage came as a revelation from the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith for the Church.

While this is an explanation, it does not provide a reason why God might have commanded it. The only reason I am left with, therefore, is the one from anthropology, i.e. that a large number of wives is a tribal status symbol, a sign of power and wealth. This explanation fits very well with the fact the polygamy was mainly practised by church leaders and less so by the general membership.

I readily admit that the misunderstanding that polygamy was commanded to raise up seed was entirely mine but I still find it shocking that there is, then, absolutely no good reason whatsoever for polygamy except that God commanded it. I have a very hard time with this. Thoughts anyone?

I must dispute your assertion that there were more men than women in the early LDS church. There were more men than women in the Utah territory. This as typical of the frontier but less true of Utah than other frontier territories. All people in Utah were not Mormon and all Mormons were not in Utah or even in the West.

[dougtheavenger]

Another conjecture is that the people were few in number and that the Church, desiring greater numbers, permitted the practice so that a phenomenal increase in population could be attained. This is not defensible, since there was no surplus of women.

This never occurred to me, even though I knew there weren't more women than men but it is, in fact, obvious that polygamy does not result in more progeny because it doesn't change the number of fertile women. That also means, however, that the reason for polygamy given in the BoM - to raise up seed unto God - is faulty.

After clearing up all common misunderstandings, Widtsoe is left with only one explanation:

Polygamy does increase the birth rate because in any society, and by any standard of acceptability, acceptable women outnumber acceptable women. Who fills the prisons? Men. Who commits 90% of all violent crime? Men. Three men choose a homosexual lifestyle for every one woman who does so. Numerous genetic diseases affect only males; such as, autism, that renders them incapable of earning a living sufficient to support a family. Alcoholism, pedophilia, anger problems, child abuse, etc disproportionately are male problems.

In all probability, worthy, females (those qualified for a temple recomend) outnumbered worthy males in 19th century Utah.

In "More Wives than One", it is stated that marriage rates for women in Utah exceeded those of women in rest of the United States.

[dougtheavenger]

Will, did Joseph Smith practice polygamy according the conditions revealed to him in D&C 132? Yes or no?

A lot of people make assertions about Joseph Smith's sex life as though they know what they are talking about. They don't know what they are talking about. Here is what we do know.

1. Genetic research by Ugo Perego has uncovered no descendants of Joseph Smith through any woman other than Emma Hale Smith while a number of candidates have been eliminated including Fanny Alger's first son.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html

2. Emma Hale Smith asserted that Joseph was faithful to her.

I don't have a problem with polygamy. It is clearly sanctioned in the Bible. However, I have my doubts that Joseph Smith ever had plural wives during his lifetime. I have no doubt that he recieved the revelation as recorded in D&C 132; the main thrust of which is eternal marriage, polygamy being a side issue.