A Response To Azariah And Davidb/Frankenstein

[rongo]

My checking in to the message board is sporadic, and I first read the (now locked) polygamy thread yesterday. I knew that my schedule wouldn't allow me to be able to participate in the thread yesterday, and I was annoyed by their mockery of believing Saints for ostensibly being unable to directly respond to the claim that the Church used to teach that polygamy is required for exaltation throughout all ages (and their claim that this teaching is irrevocable by later prophets, and that attempts to do so constitute a heavy blow to Mormon truth claims).

I was also amused by the bandying about of Journal of Discourses and its place in pro- and anti-Mormon polemics in the thread. I am (slowly) writing a series of books containing a commentary on over a hundred topics in Journal of Discourses, and I have detailed notes.

http://bookstore.fairlds.org/product.php?id_product=1239

I have also written two papers for FAIR with numerous JoD citations dealing with blind obedience/infallibility (a favorite topic of DavidB/frankenstein) and blood atonement:

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/dead-men-tell-no-tales

My current book will only have room for the topics of "Building a Zion Society" and "Adam-God theory." Polygamy discussed in Journal of Discourses is a *huge* topic (there are a lot of ink and space devoted to it), but it is way down on my list of things to cover, so I just have the notes and citations for now. I can tell you that while there are a few instances where the Brethren taught that plural marriage is necessary for exaltation (aside from the obvious that this was the narrow counsel for the people it was directed to, and not irrevocably applied to all future people, worlds without end), there are many, many more instances where the Brethren made it clear that

a) like any commandment, God can give and revoke

b) practically, plural marriage would not always be lived on the earth after the Utah Period (eternal polygamy in the herafter is a completely different matter).

What amuses me is that the level of ignorant proof-texting on the part of critics like Azariah and DavidB is obvious. They have no grasp of the scope of the complete picture of the discussion of polygamy in JoD. This was pointed out in the previous thread, but the taunting directed towards believers grew tiresome for me. And now the thread is closed.

I don't have my notes with me, but here are some direct citations I can give at the moment.

1) The role of Jacob 3 in the discussion. This neglected important point on the part of critics figures prominently in the dialogue about polygamy in Journal of Discourses, and its application alone is fatal to critics' insistence that JoD polygamy teaching is irrevocably applied to the future Church, worlds without end. As the Book of Mormon teaches, monogamy is the default setting, and exceptions to this are by commandment. The opposite is true ---- once commanded, God can revoke and go back to the default setting, in His wisdom. Here are just a couple of examples off the top of my head ---- there are more:

Amasa Lyman, April 5, 1866. Journal of Discourses 11:207

The Lord understood this when he talked to the people of Nephi: He told them they should have but one wife, and concubines they should have none. Why would He not allow them to have concubines? I suppose it was because He delighted in the chastity of women. This was simply avowing His feeling with regard to that matter. Concubinage was displeasing in His sight. He left them at liberty to have a wife, but concubines they should have none; informing them that when He wanted His people to raise up seed unto Him, and if it was necessary they should have many wives He would command them. That is simply what He has done. He has commanded us.

John Nicholson, June 26, 1881. Journal of Discourses 22:189

God has decreed that in this day He will build up His Kingdom, and we are seeking to build it up, and as it is said in the Book of Mormon that was brought forth by the power of God, through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith, that if the Lord should desire to raise up children to himself, that He shall command His people, otherwise they shall not practice the principle of plural marriage.

2) There is also a marked openness and expectation that plural marriage will not be an everlasting, earthly condition for the Utah Saints

Brigham Young, April 7, 1861. Journal of Discourses 9:36

We frequently hear people preaching about heaven, paradise, and Zion, and . . . I want to say a few words about them; and I shall begin upon the doctrine so much beloved by Saint and sinner, and that is the plurality of women. The Saints like a plurality of wives, and the sinners like a plurality of men and women. I will say to the sisters that I have heard but very few women, and not a great many men, ever talk sensibly upon the plurality of wives . . . If the plurality of wives is to pander to the low passions of men and women, the sooner it is abolished the better. "How far would you go in abolishing it?" I would say, if the Lord should reveal that it is his will . . . to have but one wife, let it be so. The word and will of the Lord is what I want—the will and mind of God. He has revealed his mind and will. The time is coming when the Lord is going to raise up a holy nation. He will bring up a royal Priesthood upon the earth, and he has introduced a plurality of wives for that express purpose, and not to gratify lustful passion in the least. I would rather take my valise in my hand to-day, and never see a wife or a child again, and preach the Gospel until I go into the grave, than to live as I do, unless God commands it. I never entered into the order of plurality of wives to gratify passion . . . I am almost sixty years old; and if I now live for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth.

Brigham Young, August 19th, 1866. Journal of Discourses 11:268

If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife at a time, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church. I did not ask Him for the revelation upon this subject. When that revelation was first read to me by Joseph Smith, I plainly saw the great trials and the abuse of it that would be made by many of the Elders, and the trouble and the persecution that it would bring upon this whole people. But the Lord revealed it, and it was my business to accept it.

3) The Brethren also expressed the view that social changes would render divine plural marriage unnecessary, and that it would "go away" when certain social conditions changed.

Brigham Young, April 6, 1868. Journal of Discourses 12:194

I wish the whole people of the United States could hear me now, I would say to them, let every man in the land over eighteen years of age take a wife . . . observing temperance, and loving truth and virtue; then would the women be cared for, be nourished, honored and blest, becoming honorable mothers . . . This would create a revolution in our country . . . If they would do this, the Elders of this Church would not be under the necessity of taking so many wives. Will they do this? No, they will not; and there are many who will continue to ruin every virtuous woman they can, buying the virtue of woman with money and deception, and thus, the lords of creation proceed from one conquest to another, boasting of their victories, leaving ruin, tears and death in their pathway; and what have they conquered? A poor, weak, confiding, loving woman. And what have they broken and crushed and destroyed? One of the fairest gems of all God's creation.

Brigham Young, Aug. 9, 1868. Journal of Discourses 12:262

Do not be startled, my sisters; do not be at all afraid; just get influence enough among the daughters of Eve in the midst of this generation until you have power enough over the males to bring them to their senses so that they will act according to the rule of right, and you will see that we will be free at once, and the elders of Israel will not be under the necessity of taking so many women. But we shall continue to do it until God tells us to stop.

George Q. Cannon, June 12, 1881. Journal of Discourses 22:181

We desire to have no margin of unmarried women among us. We do not want institutions among us which are not of God, and which propagate death and disease. We desire every woman to be married, and as there are not more women than men in Utah, if every man marries, there will be no plural marriage, it will cease, and that is the best remedy in the world for this "Utah Polygamy," as it is called, Let every man marry, and there will be no single women of marriageable age.

[rongo]

A good site for looking up Journal of Discourses quotes is FAIR's own

http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses

[volgadon]

I am (slowly) writing a series of books containing a commentary on over a hundred topics in Journal of Discourses, and I have detailed notes.

Very cool!

[thesometimesaint]

rongo:

Very good.

[Scott Lloyd]

Superb, Rongo. Thanks for your research and analysis on this matter.

[rongo]

Journal of Discourses is not the only source with relevant information on the extent to which the Brethren were open to polygamy ending long before 1890. B.H. Roberts, in his Comprehensive History of the Church, notes several times that the Brethren frankly discussed and considered this in the 1860s, and this coincides with their remarks in JoD that point to this.

For example, Vice President Schulyer Colfax noted in his journal (dealing with a state visit to Utah Territory) that “they received the impression [from Brigham Young] that polygamy . . . might be abandoned, at least as a practice” (CHC 5:179. Full journal excerpts are in the footnotes). Interestingly, Samuel Bowles, editor of the Springfield Republican (and a member of the Colfax entourage), recorded Brigham Young as saying that plural marriage “was not an essential practice of the church, but . . . a duty, under special command of God . . . At the same time he defended the practice as having Biblical authority and as having, with proper limits, a sound moral and philosophical reason and propriety” (ibid).

Brigham Young’s manuscript history mentions President Daniel H. Wells (his counselor in the First Presidency) saying that he “would not think it strange if God would take that principle back to himself for a season, through the wickedness of his people (i.e., Gentile persecution and lack of LDS valiance) ---- CHC 5:458-459. Elder Roberts (himself a three-wife polygamist) writes that “undoubtedly the church leaders were seriously considering this proposition” (ibid).

We’re just scratching the surface here, but it is quite clear that the canard that Church leaders taught and believed that polygamy (a la modern Fundamentalist Mormons) would never be done away with, or it would denote a state of apostasy, is simple not true. This is *not* to say that certain individuals in that era were not personally commanded to practice it, or that this commandment did not apply to certain people at that time. Of course it did. When individuals are commanded by authorized priesthood holders, that commandment is binding on them, even if it isn’t broadly binding on everybody else. Some people's exaltation was contingent on accepting this commandment, but not everybody's was, and not ad infinitum into the future.

It’s also interesting that the Brethren in Journal of Discourses repeatedly place total Church participation in plural marriage at around 10% (there are several quotes that use this 10% number). I wonder how those who try to make this a blanket requirement for *everybody* deal with the fact that the vast majority of the Church did not live it? Do they claim, then, that Brigham Young, et. al., were telling people back then that most of them were damned with no hope of exaltation? How do they explain the continued growth and progress of the Church at that time, given that most people did not respond to this alleged hard and fast commandment? Why would people stick around and stay connected if they were de facto disqualified from exaltation?

[Azariah]

A good site for looking up Journal of Discourses quotes is FAIR's own

http://en.fairmormon...l_of_Discourses

rongo, I merely provided the quotes and a link to the online JoDs. I haven't had much time to dive into the discussions as I have "real world" responsibilities. This message board is merely an interesting diversion. I don't believe I made any disparaging remarks against Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or the LDS Church in general. So, I honestly don't know why you feel the need to be offended by my posts.

[Tacenda]

Journal of Discourses is not the only source with relevant information on the extent to which the Brethren were open to polygamy ending long before 1890. B.H. Roberts, in his Comprehensive History of the Church, notes several times that the Brethren frankly discussed and considered this in the 1860s, and this coincides with their remarks in JoD that point to this.

For example, Vice President Schulyer Colfax noted in his journal (dealing with a state visit to Utah Territory) that “they received the impression [from Brigham Young] that polygamy . . . might be abandoned, at least as a practice” (CHC 5:179. Full journal excerpts are in the footnotes). Interestingly, Samuel Bowles, editor of the Springfield Republican (and a member of the Colfax entourage), recorded Brigham Young as saying that plural marriage “was not an essential practice of the church, but . . . a duty, under special command of God . . . At the same time he defended the practice as having Biblical authority and as having, with proper limits, a sound moral and philosophical reason and propriety” (ibid).

Brigham Young’s manuscript history mentions President Daniel H. Wells (his counselor in the First Presidency) saying that he “would not think it strange if God would take that principle back to himself for a season, through the wickedness of his people (i.e., Gentile persecution and lack of LDS valiance) ---- CHC 5:458-459. Elder Roberts (himself a three-wife polygamist) writes that “undoubtedly the church leaders were seriously considering this proposition” (ibid).

We’re just scratching the surface here, but it is quite clear that the canard that Church leaders taught and believed that polygamy (a la modern Fundamentalist Mormons) would never be done away with, or it would denote a state of apostasy, is simple not true. This is *not* to say that certain individuals in that era were not personally commanded to practice it, or that this commandment did not apply to certain people at that time. Of course it did. When individuals are commanded by authorized priesthood holders, that commandment is binding on them, even if it isn’t broadly binding on everybody else. Some people's exaltation was contingent on accepting this commandment, but not everybody's was, and not ad infinitum into the future.

It’s also interesting that the Brethren in Journal of Discourses repeatedly place total Church participation in plural marriage at around 10% (there are several quotes that use this 10% number). I wonder how those who try to make this a blanket requirement for *everybody* deal with the fact that the vast majority of the Church did not live it? Do they claim, then, that Brigham Young, et. al., were telling people back then that most of them were damned with no hope of exaltation? How do they explain the continued growth and progress of the Church at that time, given that most people did not respond to this alleged hard and fast commandment? Why would people stick around and stay connected if they were de facto disqualified from exaltation?

I don't believe HF ever commanded polygamy. That would be like commanding adultery.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't believe HF ever commanded polygamy. That would be like commanding adultery.

So you reject the Bible then?

[Azariah]

So you reject the Bible then?

Could you post examples where HF "commanded" polygamy in the Bible?

[Calm]

Deu 25:5 ¶If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his namebe not put out of Israel.

7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.

8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

9 Then shall his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house.

10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Could you post examples where HF "commanded" polygamy in the Bible?

Tacenda openly and clearly equated polygamy with adultery. This is a rejection of Biblical teaching and practice.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda openly and clearly equated polygamy with adultery. This is a rejection of Biblical teaching and practice.

In my opinion, HF only commanded the widow to be married to her BIL. Please CFR where He commands it otherwise.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Tacenda, did Jacob commit adultery when he married Rachel?

[Azariah]

Tacenda, did Jacob commit adultery when he married Rachel?

I'm still wondering if you can show me where in the Bible does HF ever "command" a man take more than one wife (when both are alive). Just because the Bible documents instances of this happening does not mean God "commanded" it. Even the Patriarch's made poor choices based on their circumstances. And yes, God can use our mistakes to further His plans.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm still wondering if you can show me where in the Bible does HF ever "command" a man take more than one wife (when both are alive).

Sorry, but I'm unsure why I need to provide you evidence for an assertion I've never made.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, did Jacob commit adultery when he married Rachel?

The operative word is "commanded". HF doesn't seem to command. But has allowed free agency and defintely forbids it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

The operative word is "commanded". HF doesn't seem to command. But has allowed free agency and defintely forbids it.

Nonsense. You expressed a belief (to which you are entitled) about what you think God would/would not command and then attempted to support that belief by equating polygamy and adultery. This is a position contrary to clear Biblical practice.

By the way, where exactly does God forbid polygamy?

Edited December 4, 2012 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

In my opinion, HF only commanded the widow to be married to her BIL. Please CFR where He commands it otherwise.

And if the BIL is already married, it is polygamy. No exception in the case of an already married BIL is given. Edited December 4, 2012 by calmoriah

[webbles]

You also have 2 Samuel 12: 7-8

7. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul.

8. And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

Sure it doesn't say that HF commanded David to marry Saul's wives, but it does say that He gave them to him and would have given more.

[Tacenda]

I guess we're all "right" on this matter. I can't keep dwelling on it, sorry for the rehash.

[rongo]

I'm still wondering if you can show me where in the Bible does HF ever "command" a man take more than one wife (when both are alive). Just because the Bible documents instances of this happening does not mean God "commanded" it. Even the Patriarch's made poor choices based on their circumstances. And yes, God can use our mistakes to further His plans.

Hosea, commanded to marry Gomer the harlot. While some evangelicals have claimed that his first wife was dead, there is no evidence of this (they have to claim this, or concede the point to the Mormons), and there is in fact a lot against that.

The classic work on this question is Orson Pratt's evisceration of Senate Chaplain Newman in the Pratt-Newman debate "Does the Bible Sanction Polygamy?" Newman trumpeted through the press that he was going to destroy the Mormons in debate, and the three day affair was so bad, he and his entourage slinked silently off, while the Mormons used the transcript as a missionary tract. Pratt went into forensic detail into the commandments concerning polygamy.

One thing that Pratt pointed out was that the number of children per father, according to the numbers provided in "Numbers," works out to be 81. Several times, there are commands to leave women of conquered people alive as wives, and this is essential to approach the offspring numbers. Aside from the obvious (Levirate marriage, commanded in the Law of Moses), the Law of Moses also has commandments concerning men with multiple wives not favoring some of sex at the expense of others. As has been pointed out, the prophet Nathan quotes "the Lord God of Israel" saying that He had given David Saul's wives.

[rongo]

I haven't had much time to dive into the discussions as I have "real world" responsibilities.

We all do.

I don't believe I made any disparaging remarks against Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or the LDS Church in general. So, I honestly don't know why you feel the need to be offended by my posts.

Glad to hear that I was mistaken. Does that mean that you believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and their successors are authorized prophets who acquitted themselves well in their prophetic duties?

I have to admit that I didn't gather that from your posts, but I'm happy to have been mistaken about that.

[Azariah]

You also have 2 Samuel 12: 7-8

Sure it doesn't say that HF commanded David to marry Saul's wives, but it does say that He gave them to him and would have given more.

God "gave" David Saul's wives and concubines in the same way any conquering king might take the defeated king's possessions. Giving or taking is not the same thing as God "commanding" David to practice polygamy. It may have been a custom, but it was most certainly not a command from God.

[Azariah]

We all do.

Glad to hear that I was mistaken. Does that mean that you believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and their successors are authorized prophets who acquitted themselves well in their prophetic duties?

I have to admit that I didn't gather that from your posts, but I'm happy to have been mistaken about that.

Why is it necessary for me to believe or recognize Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, et al as "authorized prophets"? I make no judgments for or against them. I am here solely to discuss the topics as they are brought up. If I post a reference, it is because the reference is relevant to the discussion. I try to go to primary sources, but when having a discussion online, I am limited to online sources.

Mostly, I ask questions. Post references that I think are relevant and ask for clarification. I have no interest in proselytizing Mormons away from their faith.