How Many Lds Believe Polygamy

[juliann]

The "way for [Joseph's] escape" in D&C 132:50 does not seem to refer to plural marriage. Rather, the "ram in the thicket" appears to be the withdrawal of the offer alluded to in v.51, which is a rather specific and undisclosed "offer" from the Lord to Emma, an offer that was designed to test both Joseph's and Emma's faith, as Abraham's faith was tested by the command to offer up Issac.

The ram did not just release Abraham, the mother was under as much obligation as the father.

D&C 132:50-51 does not appear to deal with plural marriage as a whole. I have not read Hudson's theory, but surely the Lord's invocation of the sacrifice of Isaac is not "directly used to explain the command to engage in plural marriage in D&C 132."

From LDS.org 132 chapter heading:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7).

The information that no one can enter celestial glory without entering into the everlasting covenant (marriage)is immediately followed by the story of Abraham. It couldn't be more direct. However, I had never seen this very prominent feature of this commandment even addressed until Hudson's theory.

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

There is considerable effort to explain why this new commandment can be considered righteous which is rather odd if plural marriage was the natural order.

50 Behold, I have seen your asacrifices, and will forgive all your sins; I have seen your sacrifices in obedience to that which I have told you. Go, therefore, and I make a way for your escape, as I accepted the offering of Abraham of his son Isaac.

Edited July 22, 2011 by juliann

[juliann]

Not so. A man can still be sealed to more than one wife if his spouse is deceased which certainly shows that it is still in practice but not for living spouses. If it were not an eternal principle than all those previously sealed to multiple wives would not have those sealings in the next life.

I do not understand how this can be used of proof of polygyny but not polyandry when so many women have been sealed to multiple husbands by proxy.

[thesometimesaint]

juliann:

IIRC the position of the Church is that she will have to choose just one to be Sealed to.

[juliann]

I can't really tell from the post but are you interested in hearing from active believing LDS who do not believe it? I believe that God created Adam and Eve as a full human being--male and female. One male and one female. I think that is the ideal that God teaches us and I think polygamy generally interferes with this. Now, I had ancestors who practiced polygamy in my LDS line, and they were fine, decent, hard working people--the salt of the earth. I think they will be blessed for trying to live their religion to the best of their abilities. I think God is far more tolerant of every cultural oddity common to our human race than most of us can begin to comprehend. As to whether or not those good people will be able to keep all of their spouses in the afterlife, I assume the answer is yes, in some form or other, but I can't speculate what that arrangement will be in the eternities.

I have encountered such a high percentage of LDS who either believe or make allowance for plural wives that I like to periodically test the waters, so yes, I'm interested in all opinions. Previously, I don't think it ever went below 80%. I am seeing a little more wavering. I would put you in the "no" category, BTW.

[juliann]

juliann:

IIRC the position of the Church is that she will have to choose just one to be Sealed to.

That has been removed from the CHI so I don't think it can be said it is a position any longer. I think this is typical of why there isn't the certainty I saw before. When standard reasons are scrutinized they do not hold up.

[thesometimesaint]

juliann:

Do you have any statements from The Brethren as to why it was removed?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'd be interested to know how many folks would accept the principle if it were instituted again, starting tomorrow. What if the Prophet said God commanded him to re-institute it and that we were all commanded to comply. Of course, this assumes it would be perfectly legal (which it will be, inevitably).

I don't think all will ever be commanded to practice. That is not what happened in the 19th century. What was it, 5% or so that practiced it?

To the OP I don't believe it will be a mandatory thing for all to practice it. I think a few will be called to do so.

[Curtis Weber]

juliann, I think you misunderstood my point (perhaps because I was not very clear): the "way for [Joseph's] escape" is not an escape from the practice of plural marriage, for Emma is commanded two verses later to "receive all those [wives] that have been given unto my servant Joseph," and indeed many of the subsequent verses are dedicated to an explanation of why plural marriage is not wrong and to defending Joseph from the criticism of Emma and others for his practice of it. Joseph is even conditionally promised more wives is verse 55.

Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac—and the way in which it was accepted and the actual sacrifice adverted—is invoked as an explanation for the mysterious "offer" which Joseph had earlier been commanded to present to Emma, which offer was withdrawn in verse 51. It was this unspecified offer that the sacrifice of Issac pertains to, not to plural marriage as a whole; verse 50 is not stating implicitly or explicitly that plural marriage was all just one big test.

[Deborah]

I do not understand how this can be used of proof of polygyny but not polyandry when so many women have been sealed to multiple husbands by proxy.

I agree. I wonder though if Joseph was more correct in his application of sealings than we became later and the later rules were just to avoid confusion and controversy. I know discussion has indicated that the earlier sealings were not correct but I've come to look at it differently as I think the sealings are more than just "marriages" but genuinely meant to bind all the people to each other; after all children get sealed to their parents too. I think our views on eternity are so limited that we will be quite surprised by what we actually find.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree. I wonder though if Joseph was more correct in his application of sealings than we became later and the later rules were just to avoid confusion and controversy. I know discussion has indicated that the earlier sealings were not correct but I've come to look at it differently as I think the sealings are more than just "marriages" but genuinely meant to bind all the people to each other; after all children get sealed to their parents too. I think our views on eternity are so limited that we will be quite surprised by what we actually find.

I have thought of this very thing recently. I would not be surprised to see if we will all be sealed to each other. In a certain sense that is already happening.

[juliann]

juliann:

Do you have any statements from The Brethren as to why it was removed?

No, I don't think they have a custom of explaining changes, they just put out new editions every few years.

[mbh26]

That has been removed from the CHI so I don't think it can be said it is a position any longer. I think this is typical of why there isn't the certainty I saw before. When standard reasons are scrutinized they do not hold up.

Is there anywhere we can see a copy of the old and new CHI? How do you know this?

[juliann]

Is there anywhere we can see a copy of the old and new CHI? How do you know this?

The CHI is now online. Old ones probably not. I know it because the "men can have multiple live sealings" has been used of proof of eventual plural marriage for as long as I can remember. Women also have multiple sealings but this was used to prove such sealings weren't valid and now it has quietly disappeared. All you had to do was ask someone who had access to the CHI.

[bluebell]

Nevermind.

Edited July 23, 2011 by bluebell

[baddonkey]

Lemme just rip those pages out of my scriptures.

There are a lot of principles that are recorded in the scriptures that are not important anymore. Examples would be things such as circumcision, not eating pork, not eating blood, using wine in the sacrament, and so forth. When a principle or law in the scriptures is important to us today, the Living Prophet will teach it to us. If President Thomas S. Monson has not taught us something that the scriptures teach, it is because it is not important for us to learn it. Joseph Smith urged Brigham Young once to teach a small gathering of members about the scriptures vs. the Living Prophet, and Brigham Young taught them, with Joseph Smith's approval I might add, that the scriptures are worthless compared to a Living Prophet. What has Thomas S. Monson taught us about polygamy, DaddyG? Nothing. Yet we have many, many members who take it upon themselves to teach it as an eternal principle, when the Living Prophet does not consider it worth teaching. This should concern us. Although men and women are sealed to multiple spouses today, there is nothing in that policy which would necessarily indicate polygyny or polyandry. If those sealed choose only one spouse and reject the others then the other sealings would not be valid anyway, and we can be sure that each person will be free to choose. I can't imagine a woman in her right mind that would want to be sealed to a man who is already sealed to another woman rather than wanting to be sealed to a single man; I just don't see that happening, so I have to say that I can't believe that polygamy is eternal. I can't comprehend how it could be and still leave the dignity and value of women intact. Dallin H. Oaks was asked in an interview if he thought he'd live polygamy in heaven with both wives that he is sealed to and he said he didn't know. Does not this indicate his awareness that the people involved may not want to live polygamy in an eternal setting? It must! He also said that to answer the question definitely, he would have to speak to something that the Living Prophet has not spoken to, which I think also helps make my point about polygamy not being important to us today unless the Living Prophet teaches it. Good grief people, this is not rocket science -- follow the Living Prophet!!!

[KevinG]

follow the Living Prophet!!!

I do. I don't teach the practice of polygamy or practice poligamy. I also wouldn't be morally outraged if the Lord commanded his people to live that part of the principle again. Although I suspect we have enough trouble living monogamy that the practice of polygamy is not likely to be reinstated in this life.

My dander gets up when people start to treat the early Saints, Joseph and Brigham as though they were mistaken or the revelations of God as though they were ignorant traditions. Too many LDS are willing to throw the founders of this dispensation under the bus that way. They were commanded to practice an eternal principle when we are not.

We are not asked to consecrate all of our wealth in full now. That doesn't mean its not an eternal principle.

[juliann]

There are a lot of principles that are recorded in the scriptures that are not important anymore. Examples would be things such as circumcision, not eating pork, not eating blood, using wine in the sacrament, and so forth. When a principle or law in the scriptures is important to us today, the Living Prophet will teach it to us. If President Thomas S. Monson has not taught us something that the scriptures teach, it is because it is not important for us to learn it. Joseph Smith urged Brigham Young once to teach a small gathering of members about the scriptures vs. the Living Prophet, and Brigham Young taught them, with Joseph Smith's approval I might add, that the scriptures are worthless compared to a Living Prophet. What has Thomas S. Monson taught us about polygamy, DaddyG? Nothing. Yet we have many, many members who take it upon themselves to teach it as an eternal principle, when the Living Prophet does not consider it worth teaching. This should concern us. Although men and women are sealed to multiple spouses today, there is nothing in that policy which would necessarily indicate polygyny or polyandry. If those sealed choose only one spouse and reject the others then the other sealings would not be valid anyway, and we can be sure that each person will be free to choose. I can't imagine a woman in her right mind that would want to be sealed to a man who is already sealed to another woman rather than wanting to be sealed to a single man; I just don't see that happening, so I have to say that I can't believe that polygamy is eternal. I can't comprehend how it could be and still leave the dignity and value of women intact. Dallin H. Oaks was asked in an interview if he thought he'd live polygamy in heaven with both wives that he is sealed to and he said he didn't know. Does not this indicate his awareness that the people involved may not want to live polygamy in an eternal setting? It must! He also said that to answer the question definitely, he would have to speak to something that the Living Prophet has not spoken to, which I think also helps make my point about polygamy not being important to us today unless the Living Prophet teaches it. Good grief people, this is not rocket science -- follow the Living Prophet!!!

Excellent. That is what I would like to see, logical reasoning on both sides instead of proclamations.

[juliann]

I do. I don't teach the practice of polygamy or practice poligamy. I also wouldn't be morally outraged if the Lord commanded his people to live that part of the principle again. Although I suspect we have enough trouble living monogamy that the practice of polygamy is not likely to be reinstated in this life.

My dander gets up when people start to treat the early Saints, Joseph and Brigham as though they were mistaken or the revelations of God as though they were ignorant traditions. Too many LDS are willing to throw the founders of this dispensation under the bus that way. They were commanded to practice an eternal principle when we are not.

We are not asked to consecrate all of our wealth in full now. That doesn't mean its not an eternal principle.

I'm interested in why you think saying polygamy served its purpose is throwing those who lived it under the bus. I don't understand how one leads to the other.

[juliann]

I'm going to try and summarize the positions I regularly see and what needs to be addressed:

1. Polygyny will be reinstituted (in the future)

What needs to be addressed:

1. Plural wives are necessary for exaltation, if so, what number of wives would meet requirement.
   
2. Women are more righteous so most men won't be in CK ....or....
   
3. God will create an infinite number of excess worthy women to accommodate every worthy man
   

2. The church is continuing polygyny by allowing men to be sealed to successive wives

What needs to be addressed:

1. Women are sealed by proxy to more than one husband (and live sealings have occurred through special permission)
   

3. Polygyny and polyandry will be reinstated

What needs to be addressed:

• Determining an eternal necessity/command for polygamy at all.
  

Can anyone add more?

[thesometimesaint]

juliann:

Yes. I believe at sometime in the furture polygamy will return. For most Saints that will be after their mortal journey here is over.

However many the Lord commands. I think for the vast majority of men in the Church that will be just one. But I willing to allow for more if commanded.

I don't believe so. My mortal experience is that both the sexes are pretty equal in capacity to sin.

I think the number of people that will be born here is already known to the Lord.

Special permission necessary for now, but I don't know exactly how the will be handlled in the hereafter.

I don't know that it will be eternal at least for those born on this planet. Once the earth is Celestialozed the Sealings would have to be locked in locked in place.

[juliann]

Sometimes, you have simply restated your belief without providing any means to get past the above difficulties. That is what I see as the problem with any discussion of polygamy. For some reason, when it comes to this topic most rely on "I beleve" rather than presenting a reasoned step by step explanation that we automatically do for everything else.

I am noticing that an expression of future polygamy now almost always comes with the qualifier that not all will engage (or "be called" which implies that we will always be doing the bidding of God rather than becoming a god). I think the pull back positions are only creating more questions and problems. If only some have plural wives then why is it necessary at all? Without a theological necessity for exaltation then it goes right back to personal preference, which like it or not is seen as lust. Or excess numbers of one sex or the other which kind of makes God come up short in planning.

[Storm Rider]

Sometimes, you have simply restated your belief without providing any means to get past the above difficulties. That is what I see as the problem with any discussion of polygamy. For some reason, when it comes to this topic most rely on "I beleve" rather than presenting a reasoned step by step explanation that we automatically do for everything else.

I am noticing that an expression of future polygamy now almost always comes with the qualifier that not all will engage (or "be called" which implies that we will always be doing the bidding of God rather than becoming a god). I think the pull back positions are only creating more questions and problems. If only some have plural wives then why is it necessary at all? Without a theological necessity for exaltation then it goes right back to personal preference, which like it or not is seen as lust. Or excess numbers of one sex or the other which kind of makes God come up short in planning.

Are you saying that when polygamy was practiced at the time of JS, BY, etc. that everyone practiced it? Further, do you think all the prophets of the OT practiced polygamy? It has always been something that a minority of individuals practiced. It may be that all who are in the Celestial kingdom do so, but it also might be reserved for a specific subset. Does it matter?

[juliann]

Are you saying that when polygamy was practiced at the time of JS, BY, etc. that everyone practiced it? Further, do you think all the prophets of the OT practiced polygamy? It has always been something that a minority of individuals practiced. It may be that all who are in the Celestial kingdom do so, but it also might be reserved for a specific subset. Does it matter?

It matters when we have members expressing a belief that polygamy is the natural order and a church that has, since the Manifestos, maintained it is not. Polygamy may be the rule rather than the exception but I would like to see an explanation for it that addresses the contradictions. And, yes, promoting the highest heaven based on equality and equal access by obedience contradicts a belief that anything important enough to be there will be reserved for a "subset". To date, the belief in polygamy is expressed as a testimony rather than an explanation and I'd like to get past that. Otherwise, we will never be able to have a rational discussion that would satisfy anyone who does not share that testimony which would include almost all of whom we hope to convert.

[mbh26]

The CHI is now online. Old ones probably not. I know it because the "men can have multiple live sealings" has been used of proof of eventual plural marriage for as long as I can remember. Women also have multiple sealings but this was used to prove such sealings weren't valid and now it has quietly disappeared. All you had to do was ask someone who had access to the CHI.

That's interesting. I didn't know the new CHI was available to the public. Is it on lds.org? I asked because I tried to find a copy of it several years ago and was told that it was strictly verboten unless you were in the bishopric.

I think most everything in religion is based on "I believe." Most well reasoned arguments I've seen, including Valerie Hudson's attempt at explaining polygamy have major logical holes in them. I don't see eye to eye with the beliefs of other church members either. Ultimately we all have to find our own way. Polygamy is already banned from LDS meetinghouses as a topic of discussion. But you'll never stop other church members who believe in it from believing it privately or even sharing their own gospel views of it as long as they qualify it as their opinion or reference a quote from a Church leader on the subject.

I've found myself in the minority on other LDS belief issues. It drove me crazy until I decided that until I found any new information on it, I'd leave it alone because my from my current perspective all it did was upset me.

Edited July 26, 2011 by mbh26

[Calm]

00

That's interesting. I didn't know the new CHI was available to the public. Is it on lds.org? I asked because I tried to find a copy of it several years ago and was told that it was strictly verboten unless you were in the bishopric.

Handbook 2 which contains the instructions for callings outside of Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics is available online at lds.org. It was put online with the release of this edition. Parts of Handbook 2 were available to anyone who needed it in the past, generally with new callings members were given the section of the handbook that pertained to them. Having it online saves a huge amount of money, especially since many never bothered to read the handbook anyway (or at least it didn't seem to sink in if they did in my experience).

http://lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church?lang=eng

Handbook 1 which is specific for Stake Presidents and Bishops is still given out only to those who are members of such, though in my experience most bishops are okay with members asking to read specific sections for their own information.