Why So Anti-Polygamy?

[jwhitlock]

Good OP, Rory, and good observations. The willingness of too many members of the church to trivialize polygamy in terms of their present perspectives, combined with laziness in not trying to understand the power behind polygamy is troubling. Combine that with the usual surface rationalizations that people give about why polygamy was "troubling" without trying to understand why such things were practiced, and you get this fashionable attitude among some that it is just fine to bash polygamy.

I believe that we attack the practice of polygamy in all its forms by Joseph and the early Saints at our own spiritual peril.

[Questing Beast]

You are right. The lds have allowed the critics to control this debate and I have often wondered why. I am proud of the polygamy heritage. I think that it is a wonderful part of lds history. And I don't ever remember it being a negative discussion in the past. But with the rise of the internet, suddenly, it has become a bedbug for the lds. Why?

One reason is that the lds members have allowed the world to enter into their church when it comes to such discussions. Either members believe that the lds church is true or not. If true, then polygamy was part of god's plan when it was instituted in the early 1830's. For some strange reason, it seems that many members are now ashamed of it. I must also blame the modern church for taking it off the discussion. It wasn't in the past. We never discussed it in a shameful way in the past. Just the opposite. We were proud of it as being a part of mormon history.

"For some strange reason", the obvious inclusion of more details vis-a-vis "patriarchal marriage" have been forthcoming to more LDS students. I did not know about polyandry until some nine years ago. Not a whisper. Polygamy, sure, everyone knew about that. But now I am finding out, also via the Net, that whole bunches of Mormons claim to have not known about polygamy in Nauvoo. Utah, sure, BY et al. were polygamists. But JS? Nope, at least not with other men's wives. That is the kicker. That goes too far. When you get into the women's own accounts of how JS applied the pressure, he comes across as a yarn spinner and coercive man. The more you get into the subject the worse JS looks. And so the entire subject turns into a mistake, not a revelation at all. That makes BY the inheritor of a mistake. The best that can be said for polygamy is that it drove the Saints into the wilderness to thrive or perish. That assured the survival and growth of the Church. Without polygamy the LDS faith would today be no bigger than the RLDS has become. That's known as irony....

[Questing Beast]

...

To yours truly, it's seems highly unlikely God would inspire His Prophets to command the members of the church to practice plural marriage under such societal conditions, thereby seeming to place the imprimatur of the Lord's Church on an evil world's ungodly practices. No, the Lord will not allow His people to seemingly join with the wicked in their riotous death-spiral dance of self-destruction prior to the second coming of Christ.

...

This pov makes no sense to me. In reverse it should also apply to God: 1890 was man destroying God's work, and the Church followed this "ungodly practice" of state legislated monogamy. Despite all the high words from GAs about "the practice" being core to the Church, a principle that if abandoned would result in the whole religion being undone or destroyed, 1890 was the final word and it came from the SCOTUS, the very nation that the same GAs had prophesied was destroying itself through wickedness, prior to the second coming of Christ, etc. If plural marriage could be stopped by the law of the land, it could also be resumed by the law of the land.... Edited July 23, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

Very good OP.

We can learn a lot from the Catholics, Copts and Orthodox. They take the long term view.

My personal opinion regarding plural marriage is that it was from God. However, I don't believe Joseph practiced it.

But Brigham et al did and we don't need to hide that.

The world will continue to be critical of us over this. It is interesting to note that the US media ran articles during the the recent presidential campaign pointing out that Romney was descended from polygamists three generations ago (the inference being that was a bad thing i.e. a criticism), while totally ignoring the fact that Barack Obama's own father was a polygamist.

And you'll get the thread locked down. So knock it off.

You keep saying that JS did not practice what he preached. So he wasn't an example of plural marriage, only non sexual sealing? Yes, that's what you say. How is that reconcilable with the c. 130 children produced in Nauvoo by BY et al. JS's disciples in plural marriages? Sex for them, but not the prophet? CFR....

[Alan]

How is that reconcilable with the c. 130 children produced in Nauvoo by BY et al. JS's disciples in plural marriages? Sex for them, but not the prophet?

I personally believe his "disciples" as you call them were out of line.

I believe Joseph knew that plural marriage could not work and he was proved right.

[teddyaware]

This pov makes no sense to me. In reverse it should also apply to God: 1890 was man destroying God's work, and the Church followed this "ungodly practice" of state legislated monogamy. Despite all the high words from GAs about "the practice" being core to the Church, a principle that if abandoned would result in the whole religion being undone or destroyed, 1890 was the final word and it came from the SCOTUS, the very nation that the same GAs had prophesied was destroying itself through wickedness, prior to the second coming of Christ, etc. If plural marriage could be stopped by the law of the land, it could also be resumed by the law of the land....

It could, but in my opinion (and it's just an opinion, not a prophecy) I don't thinks its likely the Lord will allow the Church to practice plural marriage while the world revels in a wicked perversion of the same. If the Church reinstituted the practice of polygamy during a time such as I describe, it's not difficult to imagine the wicked mockingly saying: "See! Even those oh-so-moral and straitlaced Mormons are practicing polygamy, so God himself just gave us a green light to do the same! Ain't revelation great!"

Edited July 23, 2013 by teddyaware

[Questing Beast]

I personally believe his "disciples" as you call them were out of line.

I believe Joseph knew that plural marriage could not work and he was proved right.

Now you're in it deep, Alan: JS "knew" and yet did nothing? He let BY continue as president of the quorum of the twelve? There is not a shred of evidence that JS was moving to discipline his disciples! He turned a blind eye to their immorality? Incredible!...

[thesometimesaint]

In a mere thirteen years there seems to have been a seachange regarding the LDS view of polygamy. I can remember Mormons defending polygamy only a short while ago at ZLMB. I thought they did fine too. I don't think polygamy hurts you guys in the least. I think you all can defend having practised polygamy as well as practising it again.

So why is it that now Mormons seem so disturbed about it? Or have never even heard about it? Where have you been? You don't have to be LDS to know why the Mormons went to Utah.

A viable religion isn't one that adapts itself to the times, but expects for the times to adapt to the religion. Catholics are in the same boat as far as being ashamed of their past because modern people don't like it. Modernity wants to squash revelation and morality and that makes both our churches the enemy. It is a losing proposition for religion to conform to the changing fads of the times. The true faith, whatever it is, will not make a truce with modernity.

Go ahead if you want, jump on the bandwagons of the 21st Century. That isn't how to last for a thousand years. You'll be irrelevant by the 22nd.

Stay the course.

3DOP

The Lord seemingly has no problem with polygamy under his direction. When it is not under his direction. Not so much.

[ERayR]

For quite some time, it's been my considered opinion that the Latter-day Saints will never again practice plural marriage, at least not until the millennial reign of Christ; and perhaps not even then. There is one major reason why I believe polygamy isn't going to stage a comeback for a long, long time:

In the wake of eventual worldwide acceptance of 'gay marriage,' more barriers of traditional morality will crumble, with a world ripening in iniquity embracing just about any form of 'marriage' arrangement one could imagine. To the LDS leaders and its members at large, this form of secularly approved polygamy will be viewed as a gross perversion of a holy principle, an unauthorized violation of the solemn heavenly command that children of men must strictly observe the law of marital monogamy only, except under the most extraordinary of circumstances.

To yours truly, it's seems highly unlikely God would inspire His Prophets to command the members of the church to practice plural marriage under such societal conditions, thereby seeming to place the imprimatur of the Lord's Church on an evil world's ungodly practices. No, the Lord will not allow His people to seemingly join with the wicked in their riotous death-spiral dance of self-destruction prior to the second coming of Christ.

"24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2)

To me this seems to be a very astute analysis of the question. It is not a matter of practicing polygamy but rather in doing it in God's framework, not the worlds counterfeit.

[ERayR]

When I think of Henry Jacobs I don't see God's hand in that situation.

The important thing is how Henry saw it. As I stated in another thread; This is the fallacy of applying current mores to prior eras.

[strappinglad]

Polygamy , as defined in the minds of many Americans, is thought of in terms of the FLDS and Warren Jeffs style with all the accompanying distasteful practices. We rightly wish to distance ourselves from such practices . We are , PR wise , between a rock and a hard place.

[teddyaware]

To me this seems to be a very astute analysis of the question. It is not a matter of practicing polygamy but rather in doing it in God's framework, not the worlds counterfeit.

Many thanks.

[3DOP]

Very good OP.

We can learn a lot from the Catholics, Copts and Orthodox. They take the long term view.

My personal opinion regarding plural marriage is that it was from God. However, I don't believe Joseph practiced it.

But Brigham et al did and we don't need to hide that.

The world will continue to be critical of us over this. It is interesting to note that the US media ran articles during the the recent presidential campaign pointing out that Romney was descended from polygamists three generations ago (the inference being that was a bad thing i.e. a criticism), while totally ignoring the fact that Barack Obama's own father was a polygamist.

Thanks Alan. You got my main point. The long term. Forward. Backward. The true church is not going to lack continuity. The true Church doesn't belong to anyone to alter according to their liking. Faithful generations look backwards with fondness and respect to our fathers and forward to pass on their faith to our children and their children. But people in this era seem unusually susceptible to the temptation to disregard and even disdain the traditions of their very own fathers. Someone mentioned that sometimes in polygamy girls married very young and were occasionally abused. How is that not also an argument against monogamy? Monogamy is no guarantee against imprudent unions either. An argument for polygamy is not an argument for abuse.

I am only encouraging a vigorous defense of polygamy because it keeps the Mormon connected to his fathers with a view to retaining it for the children. It makes him see the value of a continuous tradition. So long as you maintain that, the LDS and Catholic can at least talk about what makes an apostasy. But if the Catholic or Mormon merely gives way to the spirit of the age, there is no care for anything else. Lets just feel good in church and believe what Hollywood tells us without any concern about apostasy or one true church.

Mark it down. Those who have an agenda to change the moral teachings of our churches have not got the slightest concern to be able to defend their respective faiths apologetically.

I will give one example, this time from my church. Some Catholics are howling about an oppressive church that won't let women be priests. Some woman in Kentucky was supposedly ordained the other day. Instead of the real truth that women are supposed to be priests too, we had it exactly wrong saying that women can't be priests. Whoopsy daisy. Sorry about that. But the female priest bunch doesn't even care about the apologetical fallout of being wrong for 20 continuous and uncompromisingly wrong centuries. They have no respect for historical precedent and they cannot relate to the Catholics who care about preserving what they believe to be true and good.

3DOP

Edited July 23, 2013 by 3DOP

[Alan]

Some changes do occur over time; eg fish on friday. But in my view there is big difference between tradition and doctrine. Some see everything as tradition, and that is where the problems start.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am only encouraging a vigorous defense of polygamy because it keeps the Mormon connected to his fathers with a view to retaining it for the children.

3DOP

I never not defended the pratice of polygamy. I don't have an issue with it other than I believe it is restriced per the Lord currently.

I think one thing that I think is quite interesting is when my fellow mormons decry legalizing gay marriage becuase it will lead to legalizing polygamy. If polygamy was legal right now it would not phase me at all. I mean after all it is part of our heritage. Of course I think one reason people seem to shy away from it is because of the negative press that the Warren Jeff's group has brought. I mean people seem to associate polygamy with Warren Jeff's and that anyone that practices it is some horny old man that just wants young women.

[3DOP]

Some changes do occur over time; eg fish on friday. But in my view there is big difference between tradition and doctrine. Some see everything as tradition, and that is where the problems start.

I think you are saying that "tradition" is changeable and not doctrinal. I can use those terms. The reason I prefer to refer to traditions that are unchangeable is that the word itself infers a handing down, something to be passed from one generation to the next. Of course, as in Christ's day, one may urge that some traditions come from men and not God. For Catholics, "apostolic tradition" is unchangeable.

But for purpose of discussion, I will agree that there is a need to distinguish between changeable custom and unchanging doctrine. (I should have reminded myself of the LDS/Protestant suspicion of the word "tradition"). The Church has never taught that Friday penance must take this form rather than another or that it can never be dispensed. What IS unchangeable doctrine is that the bishops of the Church have the authority to legislate on such matters.

The reason for an all male priesthood is not mere legislation as Pope John Paul II said, when he denied as pope that he had the authority to ordain a female priest. In other words, to try to ordain a woman would be like trying to baptize an unwilling candidate. The desire to be baptized is a necessary qualification for adult baptisms. Even more is required to receive holy orders than a desire. As with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony there are other impediments that can invalidate that Sacrament. Womanhood is one impediment among others to Holy Orders and the Church has much beautiful and edifying theology about both genders on why this is the case. But it doesn't matter to many who more or less view the priesthood as an important job, and stepping stone to ecclesiastical authority. Of course such people women should have equal opportunity.

[3DOP]

I never not defended the pratice of polygamy. I don't have an issue with it other than I believe it is restriced per the Lord currently.

I think one thing that I think is quite interesting is when my fellow mormons decry legalizing gay marriage becuase it will lead to legalizing polygamy. If polygamy was legal right now it would not phase me at all. I mean after all it is part of our heritage. Of course I think one reason people seem to shy away from it is because of the negative press that the Warren Jeff's group has brought. I mean people seem to associate polygamy with Warren Jeff's and that anyone that practices it is some horny old man that just wants young women.

Hey Mola.

I knew there were still a lot of you who wouldn't back off. I just sense a weakening, admittedly from a limited internet perspective.

It does seem very inconsistent for an LDS to argue against same sex marriage because it might open the door to polygamy.

[teddyaware]

Hey Mola.

I knew there were still a lot of you who wouldn't back off. I just sense a weakening, admittedly from a limited internet perspective.

It does seem very inconsistent for an LDS to argue against same sex marriage because it might open the door to polygamy.

Give this wicked world an inch of moral ground and it'll take a mile. If you listen to the more radical voices in the pro gay marriage movement, they will confess the ultimate goal of their groups is the elimination of marriage, especially traditional heterosexual marriage, from the face of the earth. We underestimate the power and craftiness of the adversary of men's souls at our own risk.

[ERayR]

Hey Mola.

I knew there were still a lot of you who wouldn't back off. I just sense a weakening, admittedly from a limited internet perspective.

It does seem very inconsistent for an LDS to argue against same sex marriage because it might open the door to polygamy.

Is it a weakening or an apathy? I find a lot of LDS that are just plain apathetic but will defend the past practice when pushed.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In a mere thirteen years there seems to have been a seachange regarding the LDS view of polygamy. I can remember Mormons defending polygamy only a short while ago at ZLMB. I thought they did fine too. I don't think polygamy hurts you guys in the least. I think you all can defend having practised polygamy as well as practising it again.

So why is it that now Mormons seem so disturbed about it? Or have never even heard about it? Where have you been? You don't have to be LDS to know why the Mormons went to Utah.

A viable religion isn't one that adapts itself to the times, but expects for the times to adapt to the religion. Catholics are in the same boat as far as being ashamed of their past because modern people don't like it. Modernity wants to squash revelation and morality and that makes both our churches the enemy. It is a losing proposition for religion to conform to the changing fads of the times. The true faith, whatever it is, will not make a truce with modernity.

Go ahead if you want, jump on the bandwagons of the 21st Century. That isn't how to last for a thousand years. You'll be irrelevant by the 22nd.

Stay the course.

3DOP

We must stay the course...unless we seek to discredit all of our early leaders, and declare so many families illegitimate. It also has a Biblical history to it, which provides context. As of the late it is the "polyandry" aspect that seems indefensible.

[MDalby]

Sorry if I am not current with the view that other Christians have regarding polygamy... Do non-LDS Christians feel that the old testament patriarchs were not compliant with God's law when they practiced plural marriage? It is pretty difficult to support that God was displeased with Abraham.

I have never had any qualms about voicing my support for the practice of obeying plural marriage that is sanctioned by God. Were there imperfections that were evident in some of the early saints execution of plural marriage? YES.

[MDalby]

I just had to post one of my favorite quotes about polygamy...

Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter. I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women.

Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly, and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No—the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure—and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence."

(Mark Twain)

[teddyaware]

I just had to post one of my favorite quotes about polygamy...

Perhaps a little bit of makeup may have helped.

[ERayR]

I just had to post one of my favorite quotes about polygamy...

If one were to take him seriously you would have acknowledge that from these beginnings we have progressed to our present day pretty pampered and spoiled.

[rongo]

I just had to post one of my favorite quotes about polygamy...

One of mine is from George Bernard Shaw (Irish playwright). It goes something like this: "The Mormons might be on to something. Isn't it better to have a quarter share in a first-rate man, than to have a third-rate man all to yourself?" Not that all polygamous men were "first-rate," of course, but I think it's a clever statement.