Polygamy And Dishonesty-

[Tacenda]

The only way I could substantiate staying faithful in our church is if I believe JS was fallen when he came up with D&C 132. It's so difficult to walk away from the only thing you've known all your life. I like to think that maybe God adopted our church in these latter days.

[Arbiter]

Arbiter:

It's pretty easy really. Only a small fraction of Church members were asked to be polygamous. The blessings of the Celestial Kingdom were/are open to all members not just the polygamous ones ... You are simply wrong. From the days of JS to BY to WW to today polygamy has never been mandatory for exaltation.

This is part of what they tell us, from Primary on up, whenever polygamy comes up. "Only a small fraction ever did it." "It was never widely practiced." "So many women lost their husbands on the trip west that it was a kindness. Something they may not have made it without." I know the drill well.

It's quite true that there was never a large percentage of saints in plural marriages. The federal government came after us hammer & tongs before it had a chance. It was a hard thing to convince people to do. It would have take a lot longer to emplant than something as unobjectionable as baptism for instance. But not only is its essentialness to exaltation still there in the D & C for anyone who cares to read it, as in section 132 v 27: ". . . he that abideth not this law (plural marriage) can in no wise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord," or as also in section 132, but in verse 32: "Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law (plural marriage)," but it's also there for all to see in the many, many, still extant, still indisputable, written instructions to the saints on the matter, from Brigham Young to Lorenzo Snow to Orson Pratt to John Taylor and George Q. Cannon and others the saints relied on to direct them in the correct path to the celestial kingdom. It was unequivocal: the early saints believed, because men they believed were directed by god to tell them so, that plural marriage was a necessary ordinance for exaltation.

[Arbiter]

The only way I could substantiate staying faithful in our church is if I believe JS was fallen when he came up with D&C 132.

Test that by the spirit. When you get a confirmation that you're satisfied with, stand your ground.

It's so difficult to walk away from the only thing you've known all your life. I like to think that maybe God adopted our church in these latter days.

You don't have to walk away from it. If you think the church is a force for good in the world that has few, if any equals, you're right. It is. If you think that there are more truly righteous, truly honorable, principled, decent people in this church than in any of the others you've been in, I think you're right about that too. If you think church members as a whole are among the best, finest, most honorable, most productive, most Christlike people in the world, boy I think you're right about that as well. You don't have to walk away from something so surpassingly good because you can't quite buy into the official church position on Joseph Smith any more. Don't think that for a minute.

I don't know how many times I've heard, in church, that the very elect can be deceived. Listen to your own conscience. Might turn out you are setting a far better example than those who simply refuse to question these highly questionable things.

[thesometimesaint]

The only way I could substantiate staying faithful in our church is if I believe JS was fallen when he came up with D&C 132. It's so difficult to walk away from the only thing you've known all your life. I like to think that maybe God adopted our church in these latter days.

The Book of Mormon precedes D&C by over a thousand years. Also consider many of the prophets of the Old Testament. Were they also fallen?

I am a convert. So there was no walking away from the Church for me. Such is the nature of all revealed religion. We do whatsoever our Lord and God command us to do. Personally I'm kinda glad men don't have to undergo circumcision to become members of the Church.

[thesometimesaint]

This is part of what they tell us, from Primary on up, whenever polygamy comes up. "Only a small fraction ever did it." "It was never widely practiced." "So many women lost their husbands on the trip west that it was a kindness. Something they may not have made it without." I know the drill well.

It's quite true that there was never a large percentage of saints in plural marriages. The federal government came after us hammer & tongs before it had a chance. It was a hard thing to convince people to do. It would have take a lot longer to emplant than something as unobjectionable as baptism for instance. But not only is its essentialness to exaltation still there in the D & C for anyone who cares to read it, as in section 132 v 27: ". . . he that abideth not this law (plural marriage) can in no wise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord," or as also in section 132, but in verse 32: "Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law (plural marriage)," but it's also there for all to see in the many, many, still extant, still indisputable, written instructions to the saints on the matter, from Brigham Young to Lorenzo Snow to Orson Pratt to John Taylor and George Q. Cannon and others the saints relied on to direct them in the correct path to the celestial kingdom. It was unequivocal: the early saints believed, because men they believed were directed by god to tell them so, that plural marriage was a necessary ordinance for exaltation.

I am a convert so didn't have the privilege of Primary. My first experiences with the Church were in college Institute classes that I was invited to by my girl friend at the time.

The question remains: How widespread was polygamy in the 19^th century? Professional historians put the figure for polygamy at a low of one-fifth for the late nineteenth century and a high of nearly one-third, with practices varying considerably from community to community and decade to decade. Historian Tom Alexander says:

At present, perhaps the best estimates of the number of polygamous families among late-nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints range between 20 and 30 percent. Nevertheless, studies of individual communities show a wide variation in the incidence of plurality. Using 1880 census data, geographer Lowell C. “Ben” Bennion found the lowest percentage of polygamous families—5 percent—in Davis County’s south Weber and the highest—67 percent—in Orderville. He found 15 percent in Springville. In a study of St. George, historian Larry Logue found nearly 30 percent of the families polygamous in 1870 and 33 percent in 1880. (Alexander’s centennial history of Utah, quoted in Flake, The Politics of American Religious Identity, 65 and 192)

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/flunkingsainthood/2011/07/polygamy-by-numbers-how-many-mormons-were-really-involved.html#ixzz28FlekWae

No it isn't/wasn't essential the stats preclude such a possibility.

[williamsmith]

From another thread a poster said:

"I think that for many members the lying and dishonesty surrounding the polygamy issue is more of a problem that the polygamy itself"

Well said and thank you.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Which assumes there actually was "lying and dishonesty".

When I study the history I see a transition period for which the Church was only practicing the sealing ordinance, not actual polygamy. And when Joseph was asked and the Church condemned Polygamy, he and the Church was being entirely honest. Yes, not forthcoming of all it's private business, but it was being honest in the question of Polygamy.

[Arbiter]

No it isn't/wasn't essential the stats preclude such a possibility.

Help me understand how the stats preclude that possibility.

[USU78]

Which assumes there actually was "lying and dishonesty".

When I study the history I see a transition period for which the Church was only practicing the sealing ordinance, not actual polygamy. And when Joseph was asked and the Church condemned Polygamy, he and the Church was being entirely honest. Yes, not forthcoming of all it's private business, but it was being honest in the question of Polygamy.

Indeed . . . all the snippet quoted by Lamanite shows is that the snippee has drunk the boobird Koolaid. Nobody's lying. At worst we're tired of talking about it, because our grandparents talked of not much else . . . sheesh

[Arbiter]

The Book of Mormon precedes D&C by over a thousand years. Also consider many of the prophets of the Old Testament. Were they also fallen?

There's quite a strong case that some of them were. David for instance, for all his early promise, his beautiful poetry and his harp, was an adulterous jerk as an adult.

We do whatsoever our Lord and God command us to do

He expects us to be very, very sure that He's actually the one giving the commandment however. Blindly doing something you find morally repugnant because of who told you to do it -- I think He expects us not to do that.

Personally I'm kinda glad men don't have to undergo circumcision to become members of the Church.

Me too. But that was never in the same morally unacceptable ballpark as polygamy was.

[Calm]

I think he might have considered questioning if what he thought was a revelation might have been garden variety temptation to cheat on his wife instead.

So you believe he made up the angel threatening him for noncompliance in God's commandment?

[Calm]

He expects us to be very, very sure that He's actually the one giving the commandment however. Blindly doing something you find morally repugnant because of who told you to do it -- I think He expects us not to do that.

Are you suggesting that all the women who testified that they had received a personal spiritual witness from God to the principle were "blindly doing something"?

Brigham Young taught that someone had to accept the principle of plural marriage in his/her heart so that if they were called to practice it they would, but they did not need to actually practice it to receive exaltation, much like saints needing to be willing to be martyred for their faith and yet not being any less righteous or of value to the Lord if they are meant to live for Him instead of die for Him. What is of highest value to God is that we obey what he has called us to do and not necessarily what he has asked others to sacrifice whether one's own life, family, or something else.

[Arbiter]

So you believe he made up the angel threatening him for noncompliance in God's commandment?

I want to answer this, but I don't know what angel you mean. Tell me that and I'll do better.

[Calm]

Hmmmm....usually people who are so certain in their decision tend to be more aware of the circumstances surrounding the events they are pontificating on...

Here:

In the month of April, 1843, I returned from my European mission. A few days after my arrival at Nauvoo, when at President Joseph Smith’s house, he said he wished to have some private talk with me, and requested me to walk out with him. It was toward evening. We walked a little distance and sat down on a large log that lay near the bank of the river. He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that an angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment. He further said that my sister Eliza R. Snow had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. He told me [p68] that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I think one hour or more, m which he told me many important things. I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true.[3]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Adultery_before_12_July_1843

[Arbiter]

Are you suggesting that all the women who testified that they had received a personal spiritual witness from God to the principle were "blindly doing something"?

No. I'm certain some of them were though. I'm equally certain some of the men also wanted no part of it, but they did it anyway too. You may know about Brigham Young's famous reaction, when Joseph told him he had to do it. "Never have I so desired death." He said that after Joseph told him about plural marriage, and that he had to participate in it, when he saw a coffin on its way to a cemetery, he wished he was in it. In other words, it flew in the face of everything he'd ever believed an honorable man should do in order to be able to continue considering himself honorable -- and he did it anyway. Because he loved, and believed in, the person who told him to do it. I believe that is always a grave mistake. I also believe Heavenly Father fully expects us not to make it.

Brigham Young taught that someone had to accept the principle of plural marriage in his/her heart so that if they were called to practice it they would, but they did not need to actually practice it to receive exaltation, much like saints needing to be willing to be martyred for their faith and yet not being any less righteous or of value to the Lord if they are meant to live for Him instead of die for Him. What is of highest value to God is that we obey what he has called us to do and not necessarily what he has asked others to sacrifice whether one's own life, family, or something else.

Brigham Young wrote, in his Journal of Discourses, that the only men who become Gods are those who enter into polygamy.

[Calm]

Because he loved, and believed in, the person who told him to do it. I believe that is always a grave mistake. I also believe Heavenly Father fully expects us not to make it.

So he should have just ignored his own spiritual witness to undertake the principle?

Why does Heavenly Father sends spiritual witnesses to do something that he fully expects us not to do, what kind of mind games do you think God plays?

[Calm]

Brigham Young wrote, in his Journal of Discourses, that the only men who become Gods are those who enter into polygamy.

CFR (call for reference meaning you need to provide the exact quote)

CFR also:

I'm certain some of them were though. I'm equally certain some of the men also wanted no part of it, but they did it anyway too

For my claim:

Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal dated September 24, 1871:

Pres. Young spoke 58 minutes. He said a man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife and be justified before the Lord. (Wilford Woodruff Journals.)

http://www.mormonfun...m/Pamphlet.html Edited October 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

More support for my statements that those involved were commanded to participate not by Joseph Smith, but by God:

.. Joseph Smith would not have introduced [plural marriage] when he did except for the conviction that God required it then. Several close confidants later said that he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggle and divine warning. Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged "in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings" regarding plural marriage.

He knew the voice of God--he knew the commandment of the Almighty to him was to go forward--to set the example, and establish Celestial plural marriage. He knew that he had not only his own prejudices and pre-possessions to combat and to overcome, but those of the whole Christian world . . . ; but God . . . had given the commandment. (The Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City, 1884, pp. 69-70.)

Even so, Snow and other confidants agreed that Joseph Smith proceeded in Nauvoo only after an angel declared that he must or his calling would be given to another... (Danel Bachman and Ronald K. Esplin in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. 3:1093.)

Though he was commanded to participate, Brigham Young recounted his difficult struggle in accepting the doctrine of plural marriage and the mandate to comply:

So far as I am concerned as an individual, I did not ask for it; I never desired it; and if I ever had a trial of my faith in the world, it was when Joseph Smith revealed that doctrine to me; and I had to pray incessantly and exercise faith before the Lord until He revealed to me the truth, and I was satisfied. (JD 11:127-128.)

http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/pm3-test.htm

[thesometimesaint]

Help me understand how the stats preclude that possibility.

Simple math. Polygamy averaged about 15% in the Utah Territory. That means about 85% were under no commandment to practice it.

There's quite a strong case that some of them were. David for instance, for all his early promise, his beautiful poetry and his harp, was an adulterous jerk as an adult.

He expects us to be very, very sure that He's actually the one giving the commandment however. Blindly doing something you find morally repugnant because of who told you to do it -- I think He expects us not to do that.

Me too. But that was never in the same morally unacceptable ballpark as polygamy was.

That he was. He does have the promise that his soul will not reside in Hell forever. I don't see him as Celestial Kingdom material, but I'm not his judge so I have to leave that decision to God.

I've never advocated blindly doing anything. Though I certainly have done things I've later regretted. I don't believe polygamy was a mistake. Brigham Young wanted to die when he first hearing of polygamy. However God didn't tell me to practice it. Personally even after 40 years of marriage to one women it is hard enough getting used to one wife. I can't imagine more than one.

I don't believe polygamy is morally wrong when God commands it. Though personally I'm just as glad not to have to live it in this life.

[Arbiter]

Hmmmm....usually people who are so certain in their decision tend to be more aware of the circumstances surrounding the events they are pontificating on...

You know, I had that same thought. I guess great minds think alike.

Thanks for telling me what angel we were talking about. To answer your question now, I guess I'd have to say that I think yes, it's entirely possible he made it up, or that he had the kind of psychiatric condition that makes you see angels threatening you if you don't cheat on your wife -- or, the third possibility is that I'm wrong, and he really did get a revelation to begin to practice, and then to teach, the doctrine of plural marriage to the saints. I don't believe however, it could have been a revelation from God, as I understand Him.

And regarding the snide dripping from your post: you've got a second-hand account of an angel threatening Joseph Smith, admittedly from a very good guy who wasn't there so he's only repeating what Joseph told him, and you feel like that is solid evidence that Joseph Smith received a revelation from God about polygamy and an angel with a sword threatened him if he didn't put it in place -- and you're actually acting superior. I really don't know what to tell you. Other than it's a genuinely laughable.position.

[Calm]

You've misinterpreted my use of the angel....but ignoring that....

OTOH, we have multiple first hand accounts of men and women who received spiritual witnesses to engage in the practice. Even if one completely ignores Joseph Smith's report of his experience, how do you account for those multiple accounts which since you are apparently familiar with the subject you must be aware of, so I don't have to reference them.

Edited October 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[Arbiter]

So he should have just ignored his own spiritual witness to undertake the principle?

It's very clear he was ignoring his own spiritual witness -- the one that told him it was wrong.

Why does Heavenly Father sends spiritual witnesses to do something that he fully expects us not to do, what kind of mind games do you think God plays?

Heavenly Father doesn't send spiritual witnesses to do something wrong. I don't think God plays mind games. I think people who stifle the urgent promptings of the spirit not to do something, and the person they love, and revere, who is asking them to do it anyway, are the ones playing the mind games.

[Calm]

It's very clear he was ignoring his own spiritual witness -- the one that told him it was wrong.

And what one would that be?

Heavenly Father doesn't send spiritual witnesses to do something wrong.

I would agree and therefore by the evidence of multiple spiritual witnesses, plural marriage isn't something wrong.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_polygamy/Divine_manifestations_to_plural_wives_and_families

Edited October 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Arbiter:

So now you've become a mind reader of someone long dead. I'm a pretty good Social Worker. Even I don't claim that ability.

[Arbiter]

OTOH, we have multiple first hand accounts of men and women who received spiritual witnesses to engage in the practice. Even if one completely ignores Joseph Smith's report of his experience, how do you account for those multiple accounts which since you are apparently familiar with the subject you must be aware of, so I don't have to reference them.

The world has always had a plentiful supply of people who will swear that they've received a spiritual witness that something that isn't true is true, or to do something wrong. You can't use someone else's claim they've received a spiritual witness of something to decide if it's true or not. To decide if you should do it or not. You have to get your own. It's almost as if you're saying it's okay to say, "Well, everybody else is doing it. Why shouldn't I?" when confronted with something you shrink from.

[Calm]

And these people did exactly that, they did not rely on others to determine what was a commandment/witness for them nor did they decide beforehand what the Lord wanted them to do, what was wrong and right, they literally meant "thy will be done in all things".

It's an example I try to follow.