Joseph Smith'S Polygamy

[Teancum]

FWIW, what you are quoting isn't from FAIR.

Sorry. Thought they were related to Mormon Wiki.

[omni]

Nope. Only a small percentage of members ever engaged in polygamy. It was only a requirement for those that were commanded.

Of course only a small percentage practiced....it's simple mathematics, there's only so many women to go around. Although the FLDS have found a pretty good solution to this problem.

[omni]

What do you think?

Our leaders are allowed to be wrong. They are not infallible and history has shown that time and time again.

Then you would certainly admit that BY led the saints astray, and as we're repeatedly told, "the prophet will never lead the saints astray".

Edited February 24, 2013 by omni

[birdgirl]

Have you listened to the podcasts with Brian Hales yet? It's pretty convincing, Brian reiterates the reason for polygamy is for exaltation and creating spirit children for the worlds created by future Gods. He is explicit in this. There isn't any wiggle room for another scenerio. It does look better IMO if JS is establishing polygamy for this. Do you believe that you will be like our HF? You have to know that in the LDS church we believe we'll become Gods (meat). Why do you think BY and JS married all those women? Definitely not for fun or to fulfill sexual desires, but I do leave the door open to the thought that maybe JS started out with an affair with Fanny and then turned it into the whole....create worlds and need many wifes to procreate spirits.... theory. It may all be make believe or it may all be true, still trying to figure that all out.

Sorry, I haven't listened to this one yet. Are you saying that Brian Hales uses this specific argument- the creation of spirit children? I've heard it before but I didn't know if it was well supported by teachings from early prophets. This would suggest that we have many heavenly mothers or rather one heavenly mother each and many heavenly step-mothers as well as half brothers and sisters here on earth. I think church leaders would prefer for that one to stay in the "folklore" bin.

[Tacenda]

Sorry, I haven't listened to this one yet. Are you saying that Brian Hales uses this specific argument- the creation of spirit children? I've heard it before but I didn't know if it was well supported by teachings from early prophets. This would suggest that we have many heavenly mothers or rather one heavenly mother each and many heavenly step-mothers as well as half brothers and sisters here on earth. I think church leaders would prefer for that one to stay in the "folklore" bin.

Maybe my mind heard it differently than what he actually said. If I'm mistaken and someone heard it differently please correct me. Birdgirl you should listen to it. The link is under the Brian Hales Mormon Stories interview with John Dehlin thread on General Discussions or try going to "A Thoughtful Faith" podcast interview with Brian, that is where I thought I heard him say this.

[Tacenda]

Sorry, I haven't listened to this one yet. Are you saying that Brian Hales uses this specific argument- the creation of spirit children? I've heard it before but I didn't know if it was well supported by teachings from early prophets. This would suggest that we have many heavenly mothers or rather one heavenly mother each and many heavenly step-mothers as well as half brothers and sisters here on earth. I think church leaders would prefer for that one to stay in the "folklore" bin.

I went back and listened to a portion. Boy, I heard it differently the second time around. This time I heard him say that JS said something to the affect that there would be more women than men in the CK and they would need to be married to be exalted therefore many wives in some cases for one man. So kinda weird how I heard that it was to create all the spirits, maybe somewhere this is mentioned I don't know. I must not have been paying enough attention, was cleaning out my fridge. Edited February 24, 2013 by Tacenda

[Saints Alive]

...and as we're repeatedly told, "the prophet will never lead the saints astray".

We are told that but it's only found in the footnote of OD 1, interestingly the revelation that ended polygamy.

[Storm Rider]

It is true that most Church members did not practice polygamy, but the number that did was not small. The saints in Utah generally practiced plural marriage as much as they could.

As Kathryn Daynes summarizes in the most recent issue of BYU Studies Quarterly, "in the wake of the Mormon Reformation, prevalence of polygyny was high, too high to be perpetuated, and it thereafter declined to demographically sustainable levels, although the absolute numbers of polygamous husbands and wives continued to increase. In his path-breaking study, Stanley S. Ivins a half century ago claimed that plurality was unpopular and that as the proportion of Saints entering plural marriage had demonstrably declined over time, he claimed, 'Left to itself, undisturbed by pressure from without, the church would inevitably have given up the practice of polygamy, perhaps even sooner than it did under pressure.' More recent studies and the theoretical work of Bitton and Lambson point to a different paradigm: the relative decline in the proportion living in plural marriages was a demographic necessity to bring down the prevalence to sustainable levels, even as the numbers practicing the Principle rose. When Reynolds v. United States was decided in 1879 and the Edmunds Act passed in 1882, two federal government actions paving the way for active prosecution of polygamists, plural marriage was in fact thriving in Utah. Although levels varied throughout Mormondom by 1880, in Manti, a fairly typical town, it remained near the upper limits of sustainability" (Kathryn M. Daynes, "Striving to Live the Principle in Utah’s First Temple City: A Snapshot of Polygamy in St. George, Utah, in June 1880," BYU Studies Quarterly 51, no. 4 [2012]: 82–83).

I am hearing a lot of superlatives and generalizations, but nothing stated above provides any definitive numbers. Are they proposing that more than 30% of the saints practiced polygyny or not? I really don't think it matters, but when one is going to focus on facts it is nice to actually be talking in specifics rather than opinions.

[Calm]

The authors' demographic model suggests that, given the parameters observed in nineteenth-century Utah, polygyny prevalence in excess of 15 to 20 percent of males and 25 to 30 percent of females was implausible. Of course, pockets of higher percentages, offset by lower percentages elsewhere, were both possible and likely. St. George, Utah, was apparently one of those pockets.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=9105

The demographic work to understand the lives of those families in plural marriage is labor intensive, and this article provides only a snapshot of it in June 1880, when Daniel Handley McAllister visited the houses of St. George, Middleton, and Price City to take the federal census. The census revealed that polygamous men, women, and their families accounted for 41.4 percent of St. George's population in 1880...

The number of polygamists' daughters entering plural marriage suggests that polygamous relationships were to some degree replicating themselves in the second generation. But so were monogamous relationships: monogamous parents raised monogamous daughters. Another conclusion is that the incidence of plural marriage in St. George in 1880 was definitely influenced by the presence of the first LDS temple, which was dedicated there in January 1877.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=9107

[Alan]

Then you would certainly admit that BY led the saints astray, and as we're repeatedly told, "the prophet will never lead the saints astray".

We might be told that, but it isn't scriptural and it isn't true.

It is a false teaching which has taken hold in the church for some reason - probably because many people would rather believe it than use their reason.

So maybe BY did lead us wrong. Fortunately, I don't need to have a testimony of Brigham Young.

If he did lead us wrong I accept he was sincere.

[thesometimesaint]

Yep and I am pretty certain God did not telll JS to institute this practice.

That's not what the Scriptures say.

[thesometimesaint]

Of course only a small percentage practiced....it's simple mathematics, there's only so many women to go around. Although the FLDS have found a pretty good solution to this problem.

Nope; 105 males are born for every 100 females.

[Saints Alive]

Nope; 105 males are born for every 100 females.

That figure is debated but in any case there are more females than males in the US and most modern countries.

[Calm]

That figure is debated but in any case there are more females than males in the US and most modern countries.

If TSS is talking about what the numbers will be like in the next life, then the ratio at birth probably should be the one used; if he is talking about available mates in this life, he should probably use the ratio at adulthood which is like you say for the US (and most other countries IIRC) more females than males.

[thesometimesaint]

That figure is debated but in any case there are more females than males in the US and most modern countries.

No real debate, that figure has held stable for millennia. Males are just genetically weaker. It is after menopause that females start to predominate.

http://www.indexmundi.com/world/sex_ratio.html

Edited February 24, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Questing Beast]

Agonizing over whether "we" are or ever were led astray is answered in accepting that each individual is only right before "God" when you follow your heart. Said another way, "never lie to yourself". It does not matter who tells it to you, or how many or few agree, if you cannot bring yourself to agree, then don't turn your mind off by blindly following what you feel is mistaken, and put the responsibility of your choice upon some authority that asserts itself to be talking for God to you.

There is no "ultimate authority" for us except "God". No man or woman can be interposed between us and "God". What Joseph Smith created and Brigham Young, et al. the presidents of the LDS faith continued, is not binding on anyone. You can play according to their rules, or you can dispense with the whole program, the choice is yours alone. "God" doesn't care which way it goes, as long as you are choosing truth according to the best that you know.

And there is not "one way". If there were, we would all be guided by clear evidence to what that "one way" is. Since the world of conflicting religious assertions remains in deadlock, the evidence tells me that none of the religions of the world have anything over the rest. Some are better than the rest, some were better once, and some are improving now, as I believe the LDS faith is improving. Our history is blessedly free of the religious crimes that older sects and denominations carry as their historical baggage (I'm reading about the Thirty Years War right now). We have only a singular religious atrocity (the MMM), and an erstwhile "principle" (patriarchal marriage or plurality of wives) that once formed the core doctrine of a "peculiar people" but no longer does so. The first leaders were obvious products of their times and upbringing, with the flaws in their reasoning that typifies those times.

As we overcome each area of ignorance, by first becoming aware that we are in fact ignorant, we advance in light and truth. And we can treat history for what value it offers as explanation to the question, "How did we arrive where we are today?"

To flog the Mormons with their own history is a favorite pastime of critics/enemies, but it serves no purpose, not even justifying why one cannot be a Mormon anymore. The history can be taken in different directions, as Alan so clearly demonstrates in this thread. Imho, any direction taken that allows others to choose other directions to go is justified. It's the dogmatic direction that refuses to allow other directions to be "right" that is mistaken.

We are over seven billion unique individuals, each with his/her own ideas about "God". It isn't and never has been reasonable that everyone ought to fit into one dogmatic exegesis....

[Tacenda]

Agonizing over whether "we" are or ever were led astray is answered in accepting that each individual is only right before "God" when you follow your heart. Said another way, "never lie to yourself". It does not matter who tells it to you, or how many or few agree, if you cannot bring yourself to agree, then don't turn your mind off by blindly following what you feel is mistaken, and put the responsibility of your choice upon some authority that asserts itself to be talking for God to you.

There is no "ultimate authority" for us except "God". No man or woman can be interposed between us and "God". What Joseph Smith created and Brigham Young, et al. the presidents of the LDS faith continued, is not binding on anyone. You can play according to their rules, or you can dispense with the whole program, the choice is yours alone. "God" doesn't care which way it goes, as long as you are choosing truth according to the best that you know.

And there is not "one way". If there were, we would all be guided by clear evidence to what that "one way" is. Since the world of conflicting religious assertions remains in deadlock, the evidence tells me that none of the religions of the world have anything over the rest. Some are better than the rest, some were better once, and some are improving now, as I believe the LDS faith is improving. Our history is blessedly free of the religious crimes that older sects and denominations carry as their historical baggage (I'm reading about the Thirty Years War right now). We have only a singular religious atrocity (the MMM), and an erstwhile "principle" (patriarchal marriage or plurality of wives) that once formed the core doctrine of a "peculiar people" but no longer does so. The first leaders were obvious products of their times and upbringing, with the flaws in their reasoning that typifies those times.

As we overcome each area of ignorance, by first becoming aware that we are in fact ignorant, we advance in light and truth. And we can treat history for what value it offers as explanation to the question, "How did we arrive where we are today?"

To flog the Mormons with their own history is a favorite pastime of critics/enemies, but it serves no purpose, not even justifying why one cannot be a Mormon anymore. The history can be taken in different directions, as Alan so clearly demonstrates in this thread. Imho, any direction taken that allows others to choose other directions to go is justified. It's the dogmatic direction that refuses to allow other directions to be "right" that is mistaken.

We are over seven billion unique individuals, each with his/her own ideas about "God". It isn't and never has been reasonable that everyone ought to fit into one dogmatic exegesis....

Great comments QB.

[thesometimesaint]

QB:

It could have been different. We could have followed Satan. However that would have destroyed Agency. Without which we would not be here typing to each other.

[Teancum]

That's not what the Scriptures say.

Which ones? D&C 132? Personally I don't think at least a large part of that one was from God.

[thesometimesaint]

Which ones? D&C 132? Personally I don't think at least a large part of that one was from God.

The BoM says that when it is commanded by God it is OK. The OT has plenty of polygamy in it. No where in the NT does it argue against it. Of course there is also D&C 132.

I've never argued that you or any one else has to believe the Scriptures. But the fact remains that the references to polygamy are there. As well as OD1 were we don't practice polygamy in this life.

Personally I don't favor the return of the earthly practice of polygamy any time within my lifetime. What God requires of me in the next life I'll leave until I get there.

[MormonMason]

Then you would certainly admit that BY led the saints astray, and as we're repeatedly told, "the prophet will never lead the saints astray".

Brigham Young himself warned the Saints to get the Spirit so that they would know whether or not he was teaching the truth on any given subject. He kept hinting around about "what if" he would teach the people lies so they might be damned, and the people not know it without the Spirit. Oddly enough, each time he made some comment like that he also shortly afterward made an Adam-God comment. Coincidence?

[MormonMason]

The OT has plenty of polygamy in it.

...Including a passage where God through a prophet explicitly states that God gave David all his wives except Bathsheba, and that the Lord would have given him twice as much if he had just asked him.

[canard78]

I personally question the provenance of D&C 132.

Many sections of the D&C have been altered, or amalgamated etc in the past. An example of this revisionist activity is that after the martyrdom the church historian was instructed to revisit and re-write church history where it was felt necessary to do so.

Therefore, my personal view is that D&C 132 was altered in the light of the current church practice at the time (somewhere around 1852). I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty; they may well have altered it because they wanted it to be more honest or in line with current practice. Their motivation was honest.

The clue for me is that D&C 132 appears to be in response to a question from Joseph regarding the polygamous practices of David and Solomon, among others. I find this puzzling given that Jacob, in the BoM, clearly states that what David and Solomon did was an abomination before God, and it is condemned in no uncertain terms. I cannot understand, therefore, why Joseph would even think of asking this question.

I also think we have to put the situation that faced Joseph and the church in the context of the time and place. There is no doubt that many Cochranites did join the church. This was a sect/community who practiced polygamy. They even called it "spiritual wifery". It is more than likely that those who joined the church continued to practice polygamy. This is why the church's enemies accused Mormon's of practicing plural marriage so early on, and why the church's 1835 statement on marriage was included in the D&C at the time. Indeed it states "inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman one husband.......

For me, the real evidence (not affidavitts from people who have a vested interest in plural marriage) is all on favour of my position that Joseph was a monogamist.

Isn't the original D&C 132 in original handwriting on the josephsmithpapers.org website? I'd have to go and check but have a presentation to finish.

[MormonMason]

Isn't the original D&C 132 in original handwriting on the josephsmithpapers.org website? I'd have to go and check but have a presentation to finish.

No. Emma burned the original after a copy had been made.

But Alan also is mistaken on a few details. Joseph Smith actually received multiple revelations on the subject, including one in 1831. The questions relative to the practices of the ancients came as a result of both the revelation of 1831 and work on the translation of the Bible.

As to the Book of Mormon, only the practices of David and Solomon were stated to be abomination. Nowhere are Abraham, Jacob, Moses, or others condemned; just David and Solomon. According to the Bible, God gave David all of his wives but Bathsheba and would have given him twice as many if he had but asked rather than doing the abominations he did in committing adultery and then conspiracy to murder. Solomon married a whole bunch of women that the Lord had forbidden to Israel.

As to the 1835 statement on marriage, it was added while Joseph Smith was away on business. Oliver Cowdery slipped it in without Joseph's input.

[omni]

Brigham Young himself warned the Saints to get the Spirit so that they would know whether or not he was teaching the truth on any given subject. He kept hinting around about "what if" he would teach the people lies so they might be damned, and the people not know it without the Spirit. Oddly enough, each time he made some comment like that he also shortly afterward made an Adam-God comment. Coincidence?

Oh I get it, BY wasn't really teaching false doctrine, it was kind of like a test to see if the saints were following the spirit. So it's not the prophets' fault when they teach false doctrine, it's the saints' fault for not recognizing when they're just testing us. And we wonder why there's a perception of infallibility of the prophets.