Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[ERayR]

GG

As stated above Palerider knows this.

[Palerider]

What is between the ellipses makes all the difference. Polygamy is not the new and an everlasting covenant but may be part of it. Somehow I am sure you knew that.

Yes! I'm very aware that this is what the church would have us believe now. No doubt about it. But in the past it was not so.

This from a pro-mormon site:

John Taylor, 1885

" Upwards of forty years ago the Lord revealed to His Church the principles of celestial marriage. The idea of marrying more wives than one was as naturally abhorrent to the leading men and women of the Church at that day as it could be to any people. They shrank with dread from the bare thought of entering into such relationships. But the command of God was before them in language which no faithful soul dare disobey.

"For, behold I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. *****

And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fullness thereof, must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

Damnation was the awful penalty affixed to a refusal to obey this law. It became an acknowledged doctrine of the Church.

Daniel H. Wells, Second Counselor to Brigham Young in the First Presidency in 1875, explained:

It [plural marriage] was a doctrine of the church that when male members came to a thorough understanding of the revelation on the principle of plural or celestial marriage, and other circumstances being favorable, if they failed to obey it they would be under condemnation, and would be clipped in their glory in the world to come. The circumstances that would excuse a person would be physical incapacity and the like. The revelation [D&C 132] says that they to whom this revelation shall come and who can and will not obey it shall be damned. The doctrine was enjoined upon all male members of the Church whose circumstances were favorable to their taking a plurality of wives.

An LDS author wrote in the Millennial Star in 1877: "If the 'Mormons' were ever so unwilling to become polygamists [in the past], they [now] have no choice in the matter. God has commanded and they must obey. If there was not a single word or example to be found in the Bible in it favor, still they must observe its practice. It is in no sense optional with them. It is as much as integral part of their faith as baptism for the remission of sins, or the laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost."

For Latter-day Saints between 1840s and 1890, celestial marriage was equivalent to plural marriage and the two terms were sometimes used interchangeably."

Obviously this is not considered doctrine by today's standard, but it does show how the people at the time viewed plural/celestial marriage as it was taught to them by their leaders.

That's what is so fascinating about Mormon Doctrine. When you have "continuing revelation" all things are possible. It doesn't have to make sense, it only has to be rationalized.

As I told my TBM daughter-in-law, " In other words you could be flipping pancakes in the temple as a part of the endowment and as long as T. Monson (or whomever) says it's approved, then you're fine with that?"

She said, "Sure"

Since the church lost it's bid to stay isolated in Utah and has been forced to deal with the opinions and watchful eye of the "gentile christians" they have been slowly trying to become more mainstream. Now the job is to help members forget the past and make all those "bumpy areas" have as little effect on the current church as possible.

For many it's (sadly) working.......For many others it's not....sadly for them as well.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Palerider

[Deborah]

I have heard in many a priesthood meeting that although we don't live the law of consecration we should prepare our hearts to do so.

We most certainly are expected to live the law of consecration today, not in the form of the United Order but in the form where we are still willing to consecrate all that we have. I think we are a long way from this, but this commandment has never been rescinded. I actually think the UO is a lower form of the LOC and one that prepares us for actually living it fully. Under the true law of consecration we don't need books and deeds and storehouses but we are so in tune spiritually with the needs of others that we willingly share all that we have.

[ERayR]

Yes! I'm very aware that this is what the church would have us believe now. No doubt about it. But in the past it was not so.

This from a pro-mormon site:

John Taylor, 1885

" Upwards of forty years ago the Lord revealed to His Church the principles of celestial marriage. The idea of marrying more wives than one was as naturally abhorrent to the leading men and women of the Church at that day as it could be to any people. They shrank with dread from the bare thought of entering into such relationships. But the command of God was before them in language which no faithful soul dare disobey.

"For, behold I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. *****

And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fullness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fullness thereof, must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God."

Damnation was the awful penalty affixed to a refusal to obey this law. It became an acknowledged doctrine of the Church.

Daniel H. Wells, Second Counselor to Brigham Young in the First Presidency in 1875, explained:

It [plural marriage] was a doctrine of the church that when male members came to a thorough understanding of the revelation on the principle of plural or celestial marriage, and other circumstances being favorable, if they failed to obey it they would be under condemnation, and would be clipped in their glory in the world to come. The circumstances that would excuse a person would be physical incapacity and the like. The revelation [D&C 132] says that they to whom this revelation shall come and who can and will not obey it shall be damned. The doctrine was enjoined upon all male members of the Church whose circumstances were favorable to their taking a plurality of wives.

An LDS author wrote in the Millennial Star in 1877: "If the 'Mormons' were ever so unwilling to become polygamists [in the past], they [now] have no choice in the matter. God has commanded and they must obey. If there was not a single word or example to be found in the Bible in it favor, still they must observe its practice. It is in no sense optional with them. It is as much as integral part of their faith as baptism for the remission of sins, or the laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Ghost."

For Latter-day Saints between 1840s and 1890, celestial marriage was equivalent to plural marriage and the two terms were sometimes used interchangeably."

Obviously this is not considered doctrine by today's standard, but it does show how the people at the time viewed plural/celestial marriage as it was taught to them by their leaders.

That's what is so fascinating about Mormon Doctrine. When you have "continuing revelation" all things are possible. It doesn't have to make sense, it only has to be rationalized.

As I told my TBM daughter-in-law, " In other words you could be flipping pancakes in the temple as a part of the endowment and as long as T. Monson (or whomever) says it's approved, then you're fine with that?"

She said, "Sure"

Since the church lost it's bid to stay isolated in Utah and has been forced to deal with the opinions and watchful eye of the "gentile christians" they have been slowly trying to become more mainstream. Now the job is to help members forget the past and make all those "bumpy areas" have as little effect on the current church as possible

Read D & C 132 without the ellipses. I am not surprised that is your take on this.

[KevinG]

if ye abide not [fill in the blank] covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject [fill in the blank] covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

If God commands us to do something we must do it to receive His blessings. End of story.

*Unless you are a dedicated crap stirrer and wanting to get into an argument then you can belabor any point until

[KevinG]

Since the church lost it's bid to stay isolated in Utah

This missionaries to the whole world thing kind of contradicts that crazy assumption.

and has been forced to deal with the opinions and watchful eye of the "gentile christians" they have been slowly trying to become more mainstream.

If you mean the gentile Christians threatening to take all properties and rights away from the Saints through lawfare and warfare and the Lord accepting their sacrifice as complete you are correct.

D&C 124:49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their ^adiligence, and their enemies come upon them and ^bhinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to ^crequire that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

Now the job is to help members forget the past and make all those "bumpy areas" have as little effect on the current church as possible

Your strawman is moldy.

[Tacenda]

I'm pretty sure there are a goodly number of TBMs that would disagree with this. If plurality of wives is THE higher law of the celestial kingdom how couljd one avoid accepting it?

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."

Joseph F. Smith (Prophet, Seer and Revelator)

JD 20:28

I wish some on this board would atleast acknowledge the possibility that it is a commandment to live polygamy. I've done alot of research into this and it would be nice if someone could admit it's possible. Edited July 22, 2012 by Tacenda

[CASteinman]

I wish some on this board would atleast acknowledge the possibility that it is a commandment to live polygamy. I've done alot of research into this and it would be nice if someone could admit it's possible.

I would acknowledge that it was a commandment to live polygamy. Not sure (I'd have to research it more fully) whether it was a commandment to all, in the same way that say, everyone is commanded to be baptized. But it was a commandment.

However. it is now commanded to not be observed.

[ERayR]

I wish some on this board would atleast acknowledge the possibility that it is a commandment to live polygamy. I've done alot of research into this and it would be nice if someone could admit it's possible.

Of course it was a commandment to those who presented themselves worthy to live plural marriage but that commandment was not the part and parcel nor the heart of the new and everlasting covenant. Anybody who reads the 132 section of the D & C for comprehension should be able to see that. The covenant is explained and then finally polygamy is explained as part of it. It plainly says that if polygamy is entered into outside of the new and ever lasting covenant which must be done by one holding authority.

The manifesto suspended the polygamy part which was not binding on everyone but only those who were worthy to practice it, much like a temple recommend.

So yes

Tacenda plural marriage was (but not anymore) an opportunity for men and women to aspire to a celestial order. Polygamy was not about satisfying carnal desires but learning celestial cooperation.

Edited July 22, 2012 by ERayR

[selek1]

I wish some on this board would atleast acknowledge the possibility that it is a commandment to live polygamy. I've done alot of research into this and it would be nice if someone could admit it's possible.

We've already explained to you- at length- why it's not.

As far as your "research" goes- it's up to you and your anti-Mormon sources to make the case, not us.

We are under no obligation to concede something we don't believe just to satisfy your itching ears.

[Tacenda]

I meant in the hereafter, live the highest law. And the previous resources given from prophets and apostles are not anti. Unless it's all trumped by the current ones, but truth be told, I don't believe it's been changed, their views for the hereafter.

[Palerider]

I wish some on this board would atleast acknowledge the possibility that it is a commandment to live polygamy. I've done alot of research into this and it would be nice if someone could admit it's possible.

When I was growing up in a small Mormon town in the 50's it was not only common knowledge that all would be required to live the law of plural/celestial marriage in the hereafter, but it was also a distinct possiblity that it might be lived again either before or during the 2nd coming if the church found itself in a position to do so.

Slowly, quietly, the church over the years began to prefer that members not speak of these things. It was something that was disquieting to new converts and created too many problems with them and also with sisters in the church who weren't sure they would ever be able to come to terms with sharing their husbands.

Much better (according to the church) to say as we did while on my mission, that, yes, at one time a very few members practised plural marriage but it was discontinued and we don't have anything to do with it anymore. "Now our next concept that we'd like to cover, Bro. Brown is....."

By the way, most of those folks from the 50's (middle aged at the time) are dead now. I often wonder how they would feel reading the rationale on a site like this after they spent their lives bending their will to something that would be swept under the carpet in later generations......

Edited July 22, 2012 by Palerider

[selek1]

Slowly, quietly, the church over the years began to prefer that members not speak of these things.

Given your very public apostacy and desire to lead people out of the Church, you are a somewhat-less-than-credible source about what the Church "prefers". Call For References- please provide an authoritative statement from the Church admonishing members not to discuss polygamy.

It was something that was disquieting to new converts and created too many problems with them and also with sisters in the church who weren't sure they would ever be able to come to terms with sharing their husbands.

Call For References, please.

Please provide an authoritative source indicating that the alleged "disquiet" was in any way widespread.

Until you can do so, you are simply projecting your own insecurities and prejudices onto others.

Much better to say as we did while on my mission, that, yes, at one time a very few members practised plural marriage but it was discontinued and we don't have anything to do with it anymore. "Now our next concept that we'd like to cover, Bro. Brown is....."

That statement at least had the virute of being factually accurate.

By the way, most of those folks (middle aged at the time) are dead now. I often wonder how they would feel reading the rationale on a site like this after they spent their lives bending their will to something that would be swept under the carpet in later generations......

We would first have to establish that your characterization is anything approaching accurate.

Given your credibility problems here and elsewhere, this is something of a forlorn hope, at best.

[Palerider]

Given your very public apostacy and desire to lead people out of the Church, you are a somewhat-less-than-credible source about what the Church "prefers". Call For References- please provide an authoritative statement from the Church admonishing members not to discuss polygamy.

Call For References, please.

Please provide an authoritative source indicating that the alleged "disquiet" was in any way widespread.

Until you can do so, you are simply projecting your own insecurities and prejudices onto others.

That statement at least had the virute of being factually accurate.

We would first have to establish that your characterization is anything approaching accurate.

Given your credibility problems here and elsewhere, this is something of a forlorn hope, at best.

This is the best you can do?

You may as well just stand up and say "Why that whole thing is a dam*ed lie! Just look who's saying it! If it comes out of his mouth it must be a lie because he doesn't believe what we believe!"

I speak from 60 years of personal experience in the church. I don't need to CFR my personal experience to ANYBODY!

Regarding the statement from my mission experience you say that that is true. Well, "either make the whole tree evil or make the whole tree good" as I hear from Mormons all the time.

They won't allow someone to say that the LDS faith has some good and some bad, it's all black and white. So which is it? Either everything I said was a lie or none of it.

You say I have credibility problems. Would you care to show me an example? You say "here and elsewhere". Well, just where would "elsewhere" be? What on earth are you talking about?

I think I just got a little too close to the truth and you can't handle it......

Edited July 22, 2012 by Palerider

[selek1]

This is the best you can do?

Others have corrected you at length.

I'm simply asking you that provide credible evidence to back up your unproven assertions.

I speak from 60 years of personal experience in the church. I don't need to CFR my personal experience to ANYBODY!

The board rules say otherwise.

You made the assertion- back it up.

I think I just got a little too close to the truth and you can't handle it......

I think you just got called out for trolling and are desperate to change the subject.

Of course, the rules of the forum are rather specific.

Either provide the citations or withdraw the claims.

Edited July 22, 2012 by selek1

[sunstoned]

When I was growing up in a small Mormon town in the 50's it was not only common knowledge that all would be required to live the law of plural/celestial marriage in the hereafter, but it was also a distinct possiblity that it might be lived again either before or during the 2nd coming if the church found itself in a position to do so.

Slowly, quietly, the church over the years began to prefer that members not speak of these things. It was something that was disquieting to new converts and created too many problems with them and also with sisters in the church who weren't sure they would ever be able to come to terms with sharing their husbands.

Much better (according to the church) to say as we did while on my mission, that, yes, at one time a very few members practised plural marriage but it was discontinued and we don't have anything to do with it anymore. "Now our next concept that we'd like to cover, Bro. Brown is....."

By the way, most of those folks from the 50's (middle aged at the time) are dead now. I often wonder how they would feel reading the rationale on a site like this after they spent their lives bending their will to something that would be swept under the carpet in later generations......

I had similar experiences growing up in the the church in the 60's. Polygamy is now considered a embarrassment on the church. Something to be hidden or downplayed as much as possible. It seems the apologists have all gotten the memo. Trouble is the history and the teachings of the prophets are well documented. The quotes you have provided by John Taylor, Daniel H. Wells, and Joseph F. Smith have been ignored in this thread in favor of ad hominem attacks.

[selek1]

Polygamy is now considered a embarrassment on the church. Something to be hidden or downplayed as much as possible. It seems the apologists have all gotten the memo.

Call For References, please.

Where is the memo of which you speak? I didn't get it. Nor, apparently, did FARMS, MI, nor any of the other apologists here.

We have twenty one pages now of folks talking freely about polygamy and what the LDS CHurch does and does not believe regarding it. We have more than a dozen scholarly references and citations in this thread alone.

There are hundreds of threads on this website alone which discuss it.

That's hardly the behavior of a people trying to hide or downplay an issue.

[why me]

You may well be right.

I can just see Libs giving her ideas and understandings to the sisters. I think that she would have much to contribute and perhaps even get people to think about things they haven't thought about. I can just see her talking about polygamy and the early sacrifice of the women saints and how they need to be honored more.

[why me]

I also have no doubt that IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES were correct.......the church leadership would not hesitate to re-introduce plural marriage.

You speak as if there's no chance we will ever have to deal with plural marriage again in this life. Do you have any current writings to support that idea?

I think that it would be difficult mainly because because of the sexualization we have experienced as a society. Outside in the world, sex is everywhere as is lust in the media. I think that it would be very difficult to have polygamy where there is so much lust and sex in the media. We would need to cleanse our minds and hearts of lust or polygamy would lose its purpose.

I would think that at the time of Joseph Smith the situation was much different. The outsiders considered it an abomination and they would have attacked Nauvoo if this practice was discovered. But the media was not saturated with sex imaging and pornofication as it is today.

Edited July 22, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

Where is the memo of which you speak? I didn't get it. Nor, apparently, did FARMS, MI, nor any of the other apologists here.

As an experiment, I did a search on the MI site for the terms "polygamy", "plural marriage", "polygyny", and "polyandry". All together there were over 1300 hits, obviously some are duplicates but that is hardly hiding or downplaying the topic, it seems to me. FAIR for the same search has about 4700. lds.org had about 4000 hits. Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Nemesis]

This is the best you can do?

You may as well just stand up and say "Why that whole thing is a dam*ed lie! Just look who's saying it! If it comes out of his mouth it must be a lie because he doesn't believe what we believe!"

I speak from 60 years of personal experience in the church. I don't need to CFR my personal experience to ANYBODY!

Regarding the statement from my mission experience you say that that is true. Well, "either make the whole tree evil or make the whole tree good" as I hear from Mormons all the time.

They won't allow someone to say that the LDS faith has some good and some bad, it's all black and white. So which is it? Either everything I said was a lie or none of it.

You say I have credibility problems. Would you care to show me an example? You say "here and elsewhere". Well, just where would "elsewhere" be? What on earth are you talking about?

I think I just got a little too close to the truth and you can't handle it......

2. Be respectful of each other. This should be a matter of common sense, but we have a detailed list below of the kind of behavior that won't be tolerated.

• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements
  

[Jaybear]

2. Be respectful of each other. This should be a matter of common sense, but we have a detailed list below of the kind of behavior that won't be tolerated.

• Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements
  

Out of curiousity, what is the "appropriate" reference needed to back up this claim:

When I was growing up in a small Mormon town in the 50's it was not only common knowledge that all would be required to live the law of plural/celestial marriage in the hereafter, but it was also a distinct possiblity that it might be lived again either before or during the 2nd coming if the church found itself in a position to do so.

Should he spend about $75,000 to commission a poll of people that he grew up with asking them about what they knew?

Or how about this one.

It was something that was disquieting to new converts and created too many problems with them and also with sisters in the church who weren't sure they would ever be able to come to terms with sharing their husbands

I think it pretty obvious to any rational and reasonable person that Palerider was sharing his personal opinion, based his personal experience.

While I think its fair to ask why you think you are qualified to make such a statement, demanding a CFR strikes me petty and childish.

Does any here, including Selek, sincerely and honestly doubt that polygamy can be "disquieting" to the new converts? Really? If so, please raise your hand.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Jaybear

[Tacenda]

I believe there is polygamy in the hereafter because it's being done here on this earth when men are widowed and marry again in the temple, they keep their first wife also. It's as simple as that, easy peasy.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Tacenda

[Calm]

Out of curiousity, what is the "appropriate" reference needed to back up this claim:

Should he spend about $75,000 to commission a poll of people that he grew up with asking them about what they knew?

Or how about this one.

I think it pretty obvious to any rational and reasonable person that Palerider was sharing his personal opinion, based his personal experience.

While I think its fair to ask why you think you are qualified to make such a statement, demanding a CFR strikes me petty and childish.

Does any here, including Selek, sincerely and honestly doubt that polygamy can be "disquieting" to the new converts? Really? If so, please raise your hand.

This is also what selek issued as CFR for:

Slowly, quietly, the church over the years began to prefer that members not speak of these things.

None of your comments appear to pertain to this, which if it is a consistent position the Church has taken should be able to be demonstrated by Palerider especially since he presented it as a statement of fact, not of opinion.

Also, while polygamy can be disquieting to some new converts, is there any reason to assume it is disquieting to all? There were quite a number of those who were converts who have spoken in recent threads stating it didn't bother them, IIRC.

He is making global comments based on a personal experience that is likely to not even come close to dealing with even 1% of church members. He should not phrase things in a global way if he cannot back up with his global claims with documentation, imo.

Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

When I was growing up in a small Mormon town in the 50's it was not only common knowledge that all would be required to live the law of plural/celestial marriage in the hereafter, but it was also a distinct possiblity that it might be lived again either before or during the 2nd coming if the church found itself in a position to do so.

I still consider this to be true -- and I never grew up in a small Mormon town in the 50's. I grew up in Europe in the 70's and was not a member of the Church.

Slowly, quietly, the church over the years began to prefer that members not speak of these things.

To me this is imaginary. I have never seen such a thing.

yes, at one time a very few members practised plural marriage but it was discontinued and we don't have anything to do with it anymore.

The above seems to be pretty much an accurate statement. There is nothing wrong with this accuracy.