Polygamy, Reasons For It. And Where Is The Rest?

[Deborah]

The Law of Consecration was also part of the restitution of all things, and it, like polygamy, is currently not practiced currently.

I don't want to distract from the topic but I can't let this go as I've heard it often. I think you are confusing the LOC with the United Order. We are still commanded to live the Law of Consecration and in fact make covenants to do so. But the LOC is so much more than merely giving of worldly possessions as expressed in this talk by Elder Maxwell: http://www.lds.org/g...father?lang=eng

Furthermore I think the United Order was a very basic way of practicing the LOC and in fact will not be needed in a true Zion society where everyone is aware of the needs of others and so in tune with the Spirit that they act on their own.

From the SS lesson manual on Doctrine and Covenants: "the principles of the law of consecration have not changed since it was revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith. However, the application of those principles changes from time to time. The current prophet helps us understand how to apply these principles in our day." (Lesson 14).

[treeface]

Section 132 is a composite revelation made up of two or possibly even three parts. Everything up to verse 27 speaks of only one wife using the singular and the indefinite article. From verse 28 onward, the subject is the law of the priesthood and plural marriage.

There are several composite revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. These often only can be known by comparing manuscripts, journals and previous publications of the revelations. Some are worded as though fitted together in this manner. Others are not but the evidence is in the historical sources.

This is the first time I've heard that Section 132 is a composite revelation... I have been under the impression that it was written in its entirety in one sitting in front of witnesses. This is a very interesting proposition. Could you please elaborate?

[DavidB]

Upto verse 27 is talking about being sealed to a wife - not just one wife but only a wife. after verse 27 is polygamy, and each polygamous wife is a wife to whom the man would be sealed.

Verses 1 - 27 are not antipolygamy verses, nor do they speak solely of a man only having one wife. A wife, whether first and only wife or 5th and counting, not married to the man by the authority of priesthood will not be a wife to that man in heaven.

Edited November 27, 2012 by DavidB

[Scott Lloyd]

For some reason your comments made me wonder if the Law of Circumcision will continue for those it was given to as an eternal commandment into the next life, IOW will men's bodies be circumcised or not.....hmmm......

Alma 44:11, pertaining to the resurrection and containing the promise that "there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost" strongly suggests to me that there will be no circumcision in the resurrection.

[wenglund]

Open your eyes, D&C 132 is a commandment to live polygamy. It's plain to see. Only those that do will reach the highest level in the kingdom.

Yes, D&C 132 can be interpreted in the overly-literalistic way you suggest. I am just not sure of the value in doing so--except to provide an inane excuse for floundering belief (though this is contrary to the intents of the scriptures).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Azariah]

I wasn't near a computer or reference so I'll check that out.

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269)

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/search/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3

or

http://mormonlit.lib.byu.edu/lit_work.php?w_id=8000

[Azariah]

Yes, D&C 132 can be interpreted in the overly-literalistic way you suggest. I am just not sure of the value in doing so--except to provide an inane excuse for floundering belief (though this is contrary to the intents of the scriptures).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's not surprising that some interpret D&C 132 literally. Kind of like how people interpret many parts of the Bible literally in order to show God the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as Man's.

[Azariah]

You need better sources...

http://en.fairmormon...actice_polygamy

"...if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained." - Brigham Young to an audience who were commanded to live the principle.

Primary sources would be better.

[Calm]

"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269)

http://contentdm.lib...alOfDiscourses3

or

http://mormonlit.lib...k.php?w_id=8000

Love your cites. Did you pick up the quotes from an antisite (I found one quite quickly that had the identical phrasing with punctuation etc.) and then just tack on a link to the Journal. How about a more precise link, one where one can read the quotes in context?

[Calm]

Primary sources would be better.

Yes they would be. How about actually giving a link for your quotes so as we can read them in context rather than having to search them out of the whole JoD?

[Ahab]

The great debate that seems without end is why God command Joseph Smith to take plural wives as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Solomon.

In the Book of Mormon, we can find one reason offered; "raise seed"

In the Doctrine and Covenants, we find a different reason offered:

condition for entering in God's glory - 132:4;

he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God - 132:6;

law of the Holy Priesthood - 132:28

the Lord commanded it - 132:35

I think it might make a little more sense to you if you think of a "polygamous" marriage as a "backup plan" for those women who can't get their own husband without sharing a husband with some other women, primarily because there aren't enough "worthy" men to have as a husband at a particular moment in time.

These days, because polygamy is against the law now, women have to wait around hoping a good man will come along to give her all of the blessings available through a good man with the priesthood of God; or they can go out and try to recruit one.

Each of those reasons you listed are the benefits available through a "celestial" marriage, and without that a woman would not be able to receive all of those blessings.

[Azariah]

Love your cites. Did you pick up the quotes from an antisite (I found one quite quickly that had the identical phrasing with punctuation etc.) and then just tack on a link to the Journal. How about a more precise link, one where one can read the quotes in context?

The first link uses Javascript to show an image of the actual page in the Journal of Discourses, so I cannot link directly to it. This link will take you to the Volume, but from there you will have to find the page using the links on the right side of the page. http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9595/rec/3

My apologies for giving the 2nd link http://mormonlit.lib.byu.edu. Unfortunately, it does not seem to have the full text of BY's speeches as recorded in the JoDs. The first link is actually better as it gives the full text (as an image taken of the entire page).

[Azariah]

Yes they would be. How about actually giving a link for your quotes so as we can read them in context rather than having to search them out of the whole JoD?

I gave a link to the Journal of Discourses that are online. The quote has the page number and volume that the quote is taken from. It really isn't all that hard to look up the volume and page manually.

[Azariah]

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9607/rec/11

and then look for page 269 on the right hand column.

Here's the quote that was taken from that page: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p. 269)

[Kenngo1969]

I think it might make a little more sense to you if you think of a "polygamous" marriage as a "backup plan" for those women who can't get their own husband without sharing a husband with some other women, primarily because there aren't enough "worthy" men to have as a husband at a particular moment in time.

These days, because polygamy is against the law now, women have to wait around hoping a good man will come along to give her all of the blessings available through a good man with the priesthood of God; or they can go out and try to recruit one. [Emphasis added] ...

Well, I'm available ...

[Azariah]

Are there any RLDS aka Community of Christ members on this forum?

My understanding of their beliefs is that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy and that it was Brigham Young who introduced the practice to the church and later did a bit of "revision" on the church history to make it look like Joseph Smith actually introduced the practice to the church.

Could make for a pretty interesting side discussion.

[Azariah]

I'll be back on tomorrow. Goodnight.

[Calm]

I think it might make a little more sense to you if you think of a "polygamous" marriage as a "backup plan" for those women who can't get their own husband without sharing a husband with some other women, primarily because there aren't enough "worthy" men to have as a husband at a particular moment in time.

I hope you are not assuming that such "backup plans" would be needed in heaven. Suggesting that God would need "backup plans" to make heaven heavenly is contrary to the very concept of heaven.

[Calm]

The first link uses Javascript to show an image of the actual page in the Journal of Discourses, so I cannot link directly to it. This link will take you to the Volume, but from there you will have to find the page using the links on the right side of the page. http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/9595/rec/3

My apologies for giving the 2nd link http://mormonlit.lib...��Unfortunately, it does not seem to have the full text of BY's speeches as recorded in the JoDs. The first link is actually better as it gives the full text (as an image taken of the entire page).

IOW, you didn't get your cites from these pages but somewhere else.

[Tacenda]

I gave a link to the Journal of Discourses that are online. The quote has the page number and volume that the quote is taken from. It really isn't all that hard to look up the volume and page manually.

It is going to be awesome when Fair puts the whole set of JoD on their website (heard that here). And then when someone mentions it people won't think they got it from an anti site. Yahoo Fairlds!

[Calm]

It is going to be awesome when Fair puts the whole set of JoD on their website (heard that here). And then when someone mentions it people won't think they got it from an anti site. Yahoo Fairlds!

It is the identical structure of his combination of quotes including transition and the citations that makes me think he got it from an antisite, not simply that his quotes are originally from the JoD. Edited November 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

It is the identical structure of his combination of quotes including transition and the citations that makes me think he got it from an antisite, not simply that his quotes are originally from the JoD.

I know Cal, but honestly where but the anti sites provide JoD quotes, usually.

[Calm]

There are almost 6000 hits for "Journal of Discourses" on the Maxwell Institute site. There are 82,500 hits for the same on lds.org.

Edited November 29, 2012 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

There are almost 6000 hits for "Journal of Discourses" on the Maxwell Institute site. There are 82,500 hits for the same on lds.org.

Dummy me, sorry.

[Azariah]

IOW, you didn't get your cites from these pages but somewhere else.

Does it really matter? Yes, I did a quick Google search based on the keywords Brigham Young and Polygamy and found a random site that had those 2 quotes. I then proceeded to look up each quote in the Journal of Discourses to verify they were accurate. I provided the link to the Journal of Discourses so anyone willing to look it up, could see the context for themselves.