Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[ERayR]

Libs and Why Me your comments bouy me up! I really appreciate your honesty, it helps so many that read this board. Libs I relate to the not knowing about JS polygamy thing, I didn't know until 6 ? yrs. ago. I think the comments on this thread show that it can happen. There is a need to put it out there maybe in the ways suggested so far. It might well be a refiners fire but it would be the right thing to do.

I don't doubt you. I know some members come to church for the social aspects and just don't study or search or some even do not read their scriptures. What baffles me is the attitude that it is the churches fault because they didn't spoon feed them all that information. I mean no offense I just do not understand it. It is an attitude that leads to priest craft and the need to be told all moves to make in ones life. One needs to step up and become a partner with God in becoming what you can become.

[Libs]

One needs to step up and become a partner with God in becoming what you can become.

I agree with this, I really do....but, we cannot "become a partner with God" if we don't have all of the information we need to work through this stuff. I am willing to put out the effort, but if we don't know some things about church history, how would we even know to go looking for those things? I found a lot of things on critics' sites that I thought were lies, and was shocked when I found out they were more true than not. Like I have said, before, I would have rather been challenged by those things in church, rather than by critics. I wish my Bishop, instead of warning me about critics' sites, had given me some examples of what to expect. That would have been more helpful. (No disrespect intended towards my Bishop, because I do like him and he's a good guy).

[Libs]

I, guess, at some point, this really starts to sound like "whining". I hate that. lol

[Calm]

I, guess, at some point, this really starts to sound like "whining". I hate that. lol

I think you manage the balancing act between relating personal experience, giving constructive criticism and whining very well.

[ERayR]

I agree with this, I really do....but, we cannot "become a partner with God" if we don't have all of the information we need to work through this stuff. I am willing to put out the effort, but if we don't know some things about church history, how would we even know to go looking for those things? I found a lot of things on critics' sites that I thought were lies, and was shocked when I found out they were more true than not. Like I have said, before, I would have rather been challenged by those things in church, rather than by critics. I wish my Bishop, instead of warning me about critics' sites, had given me some examples of what to expect. That would have been more helpful. (No disrespect intended towards my Bishop, because I do like him and he's a good guy).

You do have all the information necessary. You have the scriptures, Bible, Book of Mormon, PoGP and D & C. You have prayer. You have the right and ability to call upon God and receive your own personal revelation (you just have to learn how to recognize it). Whether Joseph was a polygamist or not is as irrelevant as whether Moses, Abraham Jacob or David was a polygamist. And you have to quit expecting perfection of the church leaders, they had/have to learn line upon line the same as we do. Joseph Smith once said "I told the brethren that if they did not expect perfection of me I would not expect it of them".

It is the duty of the church to teach faith, repentance, baptism and the laying on of hand and also provide for the performance of the saving ordinances. Their mission and responsibility is to teach the gospel not history. The rest is not their responsibility. Please don't take this wrong but I think your way is trying to make someone else responsible for who you are. That can never work. You have to step up and take responsibility and go from where you find yourself now, not what you think should have been because it obviously wasn't what you felt should have been. I know it takes effort but it is worth it.

[Libs]

I think you manage the balancing act between relating personal experience, giving constructive criticism and whining very well.

Awww, thank you, Calmoriah. (But, it does look more and more like whining, as I keep repeating myself!)

Edited July 21, 2012 by Libs

[Evangeline]

... you have to quit expecting perfection of the church leaders, they had/have to learn line upon line the same as we do. Joseph Smith once said "I told the brethren that if they did not expect perfection of me I would not expect it of them".

Not only should we quit expecting perfection of Joseph Smith, but we should also quit expecting it of our current church leaders. We are all certainly on a path of learning. Over time, for example, a group of faithful church members came to realize that some of the more controversial details of our history should be addressed and made accessible for the average reader so that they wouldn't need to rely on "anti" sources for their information. I think the people of FAIR should be credited for making the information available without all the sensational and negative spin from the critics. I also think the church leaders are listening to some people's concerns about an information gap, which may account for why we recently heard Michael Otterson (spokesman for the church) recommend that people visit the FAIR website.

[Libs]

You do have all the information necessary. You have the scriptures, Bible, Book of Mormon, PoGP and D & C. You have prayer. You have the right and ability to call upon God and receive your own personal revelation (you just have to learn how to recognize it). Whether Joseph was a polygamist or not is as irrelevant as whether Moses, Abraham Jacob or David was a polygamist. And you have to quit expecting perfection of the church leaders, they had/have to learn line upon line the same as we do. Joseph Smith once said "I told the brethren that if they did not expect perfection of me I would not expect it of them".

It is the duty of the church to teach faith, repentance, baptism and the laying on of hand and also provide for the performance of the saving ordinances. Their mission and responsibility is to teach the gospel not history. The rest is not their responsibility. Please don't take this wrong but I think your way is trying to make someone else responsible for who you are. That can never work. You have to step up and take responsibility and go from where you find yourself now, not what you think should have been because it obviously wasn't what you felt should have been. I know it takes effort but it is worth it.

Yes, I know. You're right. I do have to take responsibility...I think I have, for the most part. The past cannot be undone...and things may not ever change, as far as how the Church teaches certain things (although, I wish it would, somewhat, because I think it is needed). But, the people posting here certainly have no control over that, and I doubt President Monson reads this board.

I had everything I needed...everything except an unshakable testimony of the Church, I guess. Sometimes, I want to go back more than anything, but the couple of times I tried, it was kind of like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. I, obviously, didn't have an unshakable testimony to begin with or I wouldn't be where I am. And, in the four years I've been out, that has gotten worse (or "more" true, I guess). Maybe someday. I don't know, if it will be possible. I have some very "uncorrelated" beliefs (as John Dehlin would put it). I want the church to come around to my way of thinking (waah!! )...and I know that is utterly ridiculous to even think (and I am kidding....halfway kidding, anyway ). I miss a lot about the church, though and I'm still a believer, somewhat...I guess that's why I still hang out here.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Libs

[thews]

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. The New and Everlasting Covenant is defined very clearly in v. 7 "And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

Marriage is a part of this covenant as is plural marriage when instituted. Neither is the whole covenant or the only thing under the covenant.

How does polyandry fit into this? I love my wife dearly. If I were to reject the covenant that includes her being married to other men, or me being married to other women, would I fail to enter God's glory per D&C 132:4?

[Calm]

How does polyandry fit into this? I love my wife dearly. If I were to reject the covenant that includes her being married to other men, or me being married to other women, would I fail to enter God's glory per D&C 132:4?

Has God revealed it to you? If not, I would say no.

[tyler90az]

I knew The Church practiced polygamy the day I looked online. Which happened to be the day I first started dating an LDS girl. At first it was shocking just because it is different from our cultural. Then months after I joined the Church I really thought about it.

My conclusion is that it is not bad at all, rather it is the ideal family. It is especially ideal for a family that wishes to be spiritual. If you wish to have the maximum spirituality, you need to take care of all worldly problems.

[Calm]

IIf you wish to have the maximum spirituality, you need to take care of all worldly problems.

Meaning?

[tyler90az]

Money would be a big problem if polygamy was done in any other place but a communal society. That is why communal society would also be necessary for maximum spirituality. The Lord even speaks about a communal society being optimal for maximum spirituality in D&C 78. With that in mind, I want to think about polygamy being done in a communal society and the benefits of the practice.

You can create the most offspring through polygamy. I would even say that only three kids per woman would be necessary. They would then be primarily responsible for their three kids

Raise better children. There would be more support for children living in a polygamous family. Each kid would have their natural mother or primary mother, at the same time have secondary mothers.

Women are social creations. Living in a polygamous family would obviously create a very social environment. You would obviously have to worry about jealousy and what not. But that is easily rid though by time being in polygamous families. It would be gone by the third or fourth generation.

Men are sexual creations. It would obviously clear up a big problem that gets in the way of a mans spirituality.

[Calm]

You can create the most offspring through polygamy.

For each man, yes. But for women, polygamy tends to decrease the number of kids they have.

[Calm]

Men are sexual creations. It would obviously clear up a big problem that gets in the way of a mans spirituality.

Right, because there is nothing like just giving one's carnal nature full reign by removing necessity to restrain it to help with increasing one's spirituality.

It would be gone by the third or fourth generation.

Is there any evidence of this in any society that has had polygamy for more than four generations? That is like expecting envy to disappear after the third or fourth generation of a family being rich. Edited July 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Yes, I know. You're right. I do have to take responsibility...I think I have, for the most part. The past cannot be undone...and things may not ever change, as far as how the Church teaches certain things (although, I wish it would, somewhat, because I think it is needed). But, the people posting here certainly have no control over that, and I doubt President Monson reads this board.

I had everything I needed...everything except an unshakable testimony of the Church, I guess. Sometimes, I want to go back more than anything, but the couple of times I tried, it was kind of like trying to put the genie back in the bottle. I, obviously, didn't have an unshakable testimony to begin with or I wouldn't be where I am. And, in the four years I've been out, that has gotten worse (or "more" true, I guess). Maybe someday. I don't know, if it will be possible. I have some very "uncorrelated" beliefs (as John Dehlin would put it). I want the church to come around to my way of thinking (waah!! )...and I know that is utterly ridiculous to even think (and I am kidding....halfway kidding, anyway ). I miss a lot about the church, though and I'm still a believer, somewhat...I guess that's why I still hang out here.

You will have some things to work through but come on back and get the help you need to let go of the excess baggage. An unshakable testimony is a reward for exhibiting faith.

Uncorrelated beliefs in and of themselves are not necessarily bad. It is when you start teaching them as church doctrine that the problem comes. You would be surprised at some of my uncorrelated beliefs.

Take what you believe and build on it. However, you need to hangout with the members of your ward on a weekly basis. You will be surprised at the depth of the faith and knowledge and help to be found amongst them. A friend of mine has just recently come back after a 30 + year hiatus. It took him about 4 years of attending and participation but he now has a beautiful testimony.

It won't be easy but it will be worth it.

[Scott Lloyd]

How does polyandry fit into this? I love my wife dearly. If I were to reject the covenant that includes her being married to other men, or me being married to other women, would I fail to enter God's glory per D&C 132:4?

Hasn't there been an asked-and-answered warning already on this in the thread? The portions of Section 132 dealing with plurality of lives have no application to anyone living today, because the commandment to the Church to practice it has been rescinded.

[tyler90az]

For each man, yes. But for women, polygamy tends to decrease the number of kids they have.

That is a good thing that women will have less children. I was more thinking per family and total in community. You would not have to worry about sisters remaining single their whole life either.

I am not completely sold on polygamy though. It would place little to no value on a father as to raising kids.

[tyler90az]

Right, because there is nothing like just giving one's carnal nature full reign by removing necessity to restrain it to help with increasing one's spirituality.

Is there any evidence of this in any society that has had polygamy for more than four generations? That is like expecting envy to disappear after the third or fourth generation of a family being rich.

After so many generations polygamy would become normal. Which would mean any problems associated with polygamy would lessen or disappear. That is compared to if polygamy started today out of the blue.

[ERayR]

After so many generations polygamy would become normal. Which would mean any problems associated with polygamy would lessen or disappear. That is compared to if polygamy started today out of the blue.

I can't buy your premise. I can agree that some of the problems would be worked out but considering human nature I would say some of the solutions would be problems themselves. Human solutions tend to be self centered and as such there would be winners and losers.

[why me]

It won't be easy but it will be worth it.

The problem is that those who have left and attempt to come back believe that they need to attend all the meetings and get back into it. But Libs would be fine with just attending relief society. That should be the first meeting that she attends. Then, she can leave after saying her hellos and goodbyes. No hurry to get right back into it.

[ERayR]

The problem is that those who have left and attempt to come back believe that they need to attend all the meetings and get back into it. But Libs would be fine with just attending relief society. That should be the first meeting that she attends. Then, she can leave after saying her hellos and goodbyes. No hurry to get right back into it.

Agreed. Jumping back in, full bore would be like trying to bench press 200 pounds on your first try. Possible but unlikely and unwise. I vote for sacrament meeting for a few weeks then go from there. We have a good brother in our ward that only attends sacrament meeting. If that's all one can do do then fine.

Edited July 21, 2012 by ERayR

[Libs]

Jumping back in, full bore would be like trying to bench press 200 pounds on your first try. Possible but unlikely and unwise.

No kidding. I tried this, twice. It didn't work out well. Too overwhelming, too much.

IF I ever tried to go back again, it would probably be sacrament meeting, only...although, I know my friends would try to persuade me to do more. It all sounds rather daunting, at this moment.

[Libs]

Ray and WhyMe, I do appreciate the kind words and encouragement. Thank you.

[Calm]

It would place little to no value on a father as to raising kids.

That would depend on the father and how many wives a typical family has.

In a community that is completely polygamous, there were have to be at minimum twice as many adult women as men. If each woman had three children, that makes for six children per father, not something that has been that unusual and it is certainly not unworkable for a father to have a very significant presence in each of his children's lives.

However, what community is going to naturally have twice as many women as men (except in the case of war)? Typically there are more males born than females, though with their higher infant mortality rate and shorter life spans this eventually evens out. So in a closed society if all marriages were polygynous, then half the adult men would be unmarried. If it was true polygamy then this could be balanced by polyandry, but that would result in a family with less children per adult, not more.