The John Dehlin Quiz In Support Of A Change Within Lds Regarding Ssa And Ordaining Women

[JLHPROF]

This I don't know.  From the journal I quoted above, I do know that my gggrandma Lorena was proposed to by at least two bishops (who were at the time monogamous) as well as at least two other individuals (also both monogamous) before accepting Bent's proposal.  These proposals started at the age of 15 (from one of the bishops).  It would seem that these individuals were eager to ensure they could enter into the highest degree of exaltation and there was significant competition.

 

From my study of the law of adoption (thanks to your CFR IIRC) Brigham Young viewed heaven as very hierarchical. His view of heaven had him as king and priest over all his descendants (both biological and adopted). The more children, and wives you had, the greater your glory in the eternal world. This can best be seen in this image here (click the link for a description of the diagram):

http://www.aliveonline.com/grasshopper/hyde_diagram.html

 

This is how Christ actually becomes King of Kings (not just a platitude about rulers of nations).  We build our kingdoms and add them to his.  Our descendants build their kingdoms and add them to ours.  In scripture it goes back to the Abrahamic covenant with seed as the dust of the earth being a blessing from the Lord.  Also, Brigham Young wasn't the originator of the hierarchy - it relates to Joseph's teaching that:

What did Jesus do? Why I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 347-348

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Good.  Do we have one from leaders in this dispensation prior to 1890?  And yes I agree that your source satisfies what I was asking.

Yes. But I can't find it. It's a statement from Brigham Young that says that if all men took care of their wives there would be no need for polygamy. In other words, polygamy was something that was practice to sastisfy problems caused by people not practice monogamy correctly. Therefore, polygamy isn't the ideal.

 

Anyone out there know what I'm talking about? I've read the quote lots of times, but having a heck of a time locating it.

Edited October 9, 2013 by DispensatorMysteriorum

[rongo]

A couple of people have cited the usual references intended to illustrate that the Brethren taught that only polygamists would be exalted. They failed to give, as balance (probably because they derived their quotes from other sources, and not from their own firsthand familiarity with Journal of Discourses), other statements that make it clear that there was a lot more to it than that. A lot more. I don’t want to lay out all of my sources here, because I am writing a multi-volume Journal of Discourses commentary, but I can give a few examples to illustrate.

 

In the first place, the Brethren were crystal clear that an overwhelming supermajority of the Church was not involved with polygamy *at all*. How do those who insist that it was taught that non-polygamists were damned square this fact with their claim? That 90%+ of the Church readily knew that they were damned? Really?

 

The Brethren repeatedly place total Church polygamy activity at around 10%:

 

(George Q. Cannon, March 28, 1875. Journal of Discourses 17:337)  Suppose that one out of ten people in Utah are connected with polygamy --- some think that is a high estimate --- and that there are one hundred and fifty thousand people in Utah --- some think that is a high estimate, also --- that would make only fifteen thousand people in Utah Territory who are either polygamists or connected with polygamy.

 

(George Q. Cannon, April 7, 1878. Journal of Discourses 20:4) Suppose for instance that one man of every ten among these “Mormons” is a polygamist, are there any more than that? If there are, I do not know it. I have never taken the census, but in the range of my personal acquaintance, as I have scanned them, I think that there are not one-tenth of the men in this Territory who have attained their majority who are polygamists. And we will say there are 150,000 people in this Territory, how many of them are men? If we apply the same rule of ascertaining this that we do to other communities --- and it will not apply to ours because our children are in excess --- but as it is, we will apply the same rule and divide 150,000 by five; how many does it leave? Thirty thousand. We will say there are thirty thousand men in Utah Territory who have attained their majority, and one-tenth of this number are polygamists. What do we have left? Three thousand men.

 

(Wilford Woodruff, June 12, 1881. Journal of Discourses 22:174) But nine percent of these Mormons may be polygamists. Dreadful!

 

(John Taylor, August 20, 1882. Journal of Discourses 23:141) Our nation has seen fit to condemn everybody, the non-polygamists as well as the polygamists, because the non-polygamists happen to live in the same place as the polygamists. Thus, nine-tenths are proscribed for what the other tenth are alleged to have done.

 

Second, there are scores of statements that make it clear that people could look for and expect exaltation outside of polygamy. Here is but one example:

 

(Brigham Young, April 8, 1853. Journal of Discourses 6:307)  You may see hundreds of Elders who say to the sisters, “Come and be sealed to me,” crawling around to make the holy ordinances of God a matter of speculation . . . They will tell you that you will go into eternity and find yourselves without husbands, and cannot get an exaltation --- that you cannot have this, that, or the other, unless you are sealed to them. I am free, and so are you. My advice to the sisters is, Never be sealed to any man unless you wish to be. I say to you High Priests and Elders, Never from this time ask a woman to be sealed to you, unless she wants to be; but let the widows and children alone.

 

Third, the Brethren, including especially Brigham Young, looked for and expected it to eventually be suspended through revelation. They were open to this, as opposed to insisting that it would never be done away with, worlds without end.

 

(Brigham Young, April 7, 1861. Journal of Discourses 9:36) . . . the sooner it is abolished, the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say that if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man 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 . . . I would rather take my valise in my hand today, 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.

 

(Brigham Young, August 19, 1866. Journal of Discourses 11:268) If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.

 

Fourth, the Brethren recognized that cultural and social changes in society at large and in the Church in particular would end polygamy “on natural principles,” without any need for revelation.

 

(Brigham Young, August 9, 1868. Journal of Discourses 12: 262) My sisters . . . just get influence among the daughters of Eve in the midst of this generation until you have power enough over the males . . . so 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 [practicing polygamy]. 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 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.

 

None of which rhetoric aligns with “polygamy or damnation/no exaltation.”

 

Fifth, there are other data points outside of Journal of Discourses. Brigham Young declared to Vice President Skuyler Colfax and editor Samuel Bowles that “Plural marriage was not an essential practice of the church; but only a privilege and a duty, under special command of God . . . At the same time he defended the practice as having Biblical authority and having, with proper limits, sound moral and philosophical reason and propriety.” (Colfax’s journal, Comprehensive History of the Church, 5:179) Colfax’s conversation with President Young “impressed me with the belief that they . . . have contemplated the possibility of sometime or other stopping the practice by new revelation” (Colfax’s journal, ibid). President Daniel H. Wells (1^st presidency under Young) said that he “would not think it strange if God would take that principle back to himself for a season” (ibid, 5:459; School of the Prophets minutes, December 9, 1971; History of Brigham Young Ms. 2:1980).

[rongo]

So what do I do with the statements emphasizing polygamy's importance in exaltation? I think it's clear that it was a requirement for people who were commanded or expected to enter in to it. But this was a tiny minority within the Church.

[Calm]

 I don’t want to lay out all of my sources here, because I am writing a multi-volume Journal of Discourses commentary....

Definitely looking forward to it, huge undertaking, how much longer do you think before ready for publishing?

[canard78]

I had not heard of single deceased women being sealed to leaders. When was that done? In your second example, could I presume that there was some type of relationship between the pair prior to death? Or are we, as a matter of policy, letting mortals choose eternal marriage partners for deceased relatives?

 

Helen Marr Kimball was sealed for eternity (while she was living) to Joseph Smith (once he had died). Her 'living' husband stood as proxy for Joseph. Helen then stood as proxy while her living husband was sealed for eternity to a dead woman. 

 

(So whose marriage covenant where the later children born under???!!!)

[canard78]

Most if not all of what McConie was referring to were presented in his unfortunately titled "Mormon Doctrine" and not spoken from the pulpit. Maybe there is a difference there.

 

Glenn

 

Plenty of JOD was "spoken from the pulpit" and is none doctrinal. Why is it different in 19th C?

[rongo]

Definitely looking forward to it, huge undertaking, how much longer do you think before ready for publishing?

Life gets in the way. I'm a school teacher, with a stay-at-home wife and four kids. Line upon line, here a little and there a little.

 

It is nice to have my notes, though. When the need arises, I can look up stuff and comment.

[JLHPROF]

Helen Marr Kimball was sealed for eternity (while she was living) to Joseph Smith (once he had died). Her 'living' husband stood as proxy for Joseph. Helen then stood as proxy while her living husband was sealed for eternity to a dead woman. 

 

(So whose marriage covenant where the later children born under???!!!)

 

The children were Joseph's.  When a woman was sealed to a man for eternity, and then he died, if she was sealed to a second husband for time he was required to promise to deliver her (Helen) and any "fruits" of the marriage up to her eternal husband in the resurrection.

[Scott Lloyd]

So what do I do with the statements emphasizing polygamy's importance in exaltation? I think it's clear that it was a requirement for people who were commanded or expected to enter in to it. But this was a tiny minority within the Church.

Hence my call for viewing such statements in context -- both their literary context and the historical context in which they were uttered.

 

Nice work, by the way.

[JLHPROF]

A couple of people have cited the usual references intended to illustrate that the Brethren taught that only polygamists would be exalted. They failed to give, as balance (probably because they derived their quotes from other sources, and not from their own firsthand familiarity with Journal of Discourses), other statements that make it clear that there was a lot more to it than that. A lot more. I don’t want to lay out all of my sources here, because I am writing a multi-volume Journal of Discourses commentary, but I can give a few examples to illustrate.

 

In the first place, the Brethren were crystal clear that an overwhelming supermajority of the Church was not involved with polygamy *at all*. How do those who insist that it was taught that non-polygamists were damned square this fact with their claim? That 90%+ of the Church readily knew that they were damned? Really?

 

The Brethren repeatedly place total Church polygamy activity at around 10%:

Quote

Quote(George Q. Cannon, March 28, 1875. Journal of Discourses 17:337)  Suppose that one out of ten people in Utah are connected with polygamy --- some think that is a high estimate --- and that there are one hundred and fifty thousand people in Utah --- some think that is a high estimate, also --- that would make only fifteen thousand people in Utah Territory who are either polygamists or connected with polygamy.

(George Q. Cannon, April 7, 1878. Journal of Discourses 20:4) Suppose for instance that one man of every ten among these “Mormons” is a polygamist, are there any more than that? If there are, I do not know it. I have never taken the census, but in the range of my personal acquaintance, as I have scanned them, I think that there are not one-tenth of the men in this Territory who have attained their majority who are polygamists. And we will say there are 150,000 people in this Territory, how many of them are men? If we apply the same rule of ascertaining this that we do to other communities --- and it will not apply to ours because our children are in excess --- but as it is, we will apply the same rule and divide 150,000 by five; how many does it leave? Thirty thousand. We will say there are thirty thousand men in Utah Territory who have attained their majority, and one-tenth of this number are polygamists. What do we have left? Three thousand men.

Quote

(Wilford Woodruff, June 12, 1881. Journal of Discourses 22:174) But nine percent of these Mormons may be polygamists. Dreadful!

Quote

(John Taylor, August 20, 1882. Journal of Discourses 23:141) Our nation has seen fit to condemn everybody, the non-polygamists as well as the polygamists, because the non-polygamists happen to live in the same place as the polygamists. Thus, nine-tenths are proscribed for what the other tenth are alleged to have done.

 

Percentage rates of people following polygamy don't refute the official teaching that it was a necessity for exaltation.

 

 

Second, there are scores of statements that make it clear that people could look for and expect exaltation outside of polygamy. Here is but one example:

Quote

(Brigham Young, April 8, 1853. Journal of Discourses 6:307)  You may see hundreds of Elders who say to the sisters, “Come and be sealed to me,” crawling around to make the holy ordinances of God a matter of speculation . . . They will tell you that you will go into eternity and find yourselves without husbands, and cannot get an exaltation --- that you cannot have this, that, or the other, unless you are sealed to them. I am free, and so are you. My advice to the sisters is, Never be sealed to any man unless you wish to be. I say to you High Priests and Elders, Never from this time ask a woman to be sealed to you, unless she wants to be; but let the widows and children alone.

 

This quote says nothing about polygamy not being necessary for exaltation.  It simply says that women should not be forced into marriage and are free to choose their husbands.

 

 

Third, the Brethren, including especially Brigham Young, looked for and expected it to eventually be suspended through revelation. They were open to this, as opposed to insisting that it would never be done away with, worlds without end.

Quote

(Brigham Young, April 7, 1861. Journal of Discourses 9:36) . . . the sooner it is abolished, the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say that if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man 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 . . . I would rather take my valise in my hand today, 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.

Quote

(Brigham Young, August 19, 1866. Journal of Discourses 11:268) If it is wrong for a man to have more than one wife, the Lord will reveal it by and by, and he will put it away that it will not be known in the Church.

 

This was not a prophecy or expectation of the ending of plural marriage, it is just Brigham saying that whatever God wants takes priority over any gospel doctrine.

 

 

Fourth, the Brethren recognized that cultural and social changes in society at large and in the Church in particular would end polygamy “on natural principles,” without any need for revelation.

Quote

(Brigham Young, August 9, 1868. Journal of Discourses 12: 262) My sisters . . . just get influence among the daughters of Eve in the midst of this generation until you have power enough over the males . . . so 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 [practicing polygamy]. But we shall continue to do it until God tells us to stop . . .  

Quote

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

But neither of these quotes specify that polygamy was not necessary, whether temporally or for exaltation.

 

 

None of which rhetoric aligns with “polygamy or damnation/no exaltation.”

 

Fifth, there are other data points outside of Journal of Discourses. Brigham Young declared to Vice President Skuyler Colfax and editor Samuel Bowles that “Plural marriage was not an essential practice of the church; but only a privilege and a duty, under special command of God . . . At the same time he defended the practice as having Biblical authority and having, with proper limits, sound moral and philosophical reason and propriety.” (Colfax’s journal, Comprehensive History of the Church, 5:179) Colfax’s conversation with President Young “impressed me with the belief that they . . . have contemplated the possibility of sometime or other stopping the practice by new revelation” (Colfax’s journal, ibid). President Daniel H. Wells (1^st presidency under Young) said that he “would not think it strange if God would take that principle back to himself for a season” (ibid, 5:459; School of the Prophets minutes, December 9, 1971; History of Brigham Young Ms. 2:1980).

But as the D&C tells us, if God does revoke a law (even for a season) we lose a blessing.

[Glenn101]

Plenty of JOD was "spoken from the pulpit" and is none doctrinal. Why is it different in 19th C?

 

If I recall, certain selections of Brigham Young's discourses were presented in the priesthood manual as being among his teachings, after they were checked for doctrinal accuracy.

 

I would imagine that any speech given by a General Authoritythat does not conform to those standards would have a clarification appended in the print version.

 

Glenn

[canard78]

Yes. But I can't find it. It's a statement from Brigham Young that says that if all men took care of their wives there would be no need for polygamy. In other words, polygamy was something that was practice to sastisfy problems caused by people not practice monogamy correctly. Therefore, polygamy isn't the ideal.

 

Anyone out there know what I'm talking about? I've read the quote lots of times, but having a heck of a time locating it.

 

I know Rongo shared a quote to that effect once. He's on this thread so might be able to help you out.

[canard78]

If I recall, certain selections of Brigham Young's discourses were presented in the priesthood manual as being among his teachings, after they were checked for doctrinal accuracy.

 

I would imagine that any speech given by a General Authoritythat does not conform to those standards would have a clarification appended in the print version.

 

Glenn

 

I'm intrigued who these Mormon Doctrine police are and what sources they use.

 

What of:

 

"There's no office in the Church that qualifies the holder to give the official interpretation of the Church. We're to read the scriptures for ourselves, as guided by the Spirit.

Joseph Smith himself often disagreed with various of his brethren on different points, yet he never cracked down on them, saying they'd better change this or that, or else. He disagreed with Parley P. Pratt on a number of things, and also with Brigham Young on various things."

 

 

Hugh Nibley

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=103&chapid=1154

[Brian 2.0]

I'm intrigued who these Mormon Doctrine police are and what sources they use.

 

It's the highest governing body in the church:  The Correlation Department.

 

I'm only kidding... sort of.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The Brethren repeatedly place total Church polygamy activity at around 10%:

Per FAIR:

 

 

Most polygamists in Utah had only two wives. About 15-20% of families were polygamous, though the impact on the LDS experience was profound:

Excluding inactive men, “over a third of all husbands’ time, nearly three-quarters of all women-years, and well over half of all child-years were spent in polygamy before 1880.”

Other historians put it at 20-30%.  Given that if 1 out of 10 men practiced polygamy, the number of females practicing polygamy would be much higher (at least twice) and the number of children born into such families would be higher. What percentage of current members expect exaltation? (i.e. full tithe paying temple worthy.  I'd wager it might be less than the 20-30%!)

 

 

 

I just checked one of your sources and talk about taking stuff out of context! You quoted:

 

 

 . . . the sooner it is abolished, the better. “How far would you go in abolishing it?” I would say that if the Lord should reveal that it is his will to go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man 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 . . . I would rather take my valise in my hand today, 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.

In context BY was talking about people desiring plural wives out of passion and not principle. Here is the full quote:

 

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 go so far as to become a Shaking Quaker, Amen to it, and let the sexes have no connection. If so far as for a man 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.

 

If the rest of your quotes are similar, you might want to revisit and provide context.  

 

A few questions for you and those that think the early church thought polygamy was to be temporary and wasn't necessary. Why did people on the ground interpret church leaders teachings as saying polygamy was required for the highest degree of celestial glory? Second why was there such a resistance to the "revelation" to give polygamy up in 1890? Why did church sanctioned marriages continue through 1904? Why were apostles like John W Taylor willing to get excommunicated over the principle? Did they just miss the message? 

 

I understand the apologetic desire to make everything nice and neat and remove cognitive dissonance, but the people that lived the principle sure thought that it was really important.  Through their lives and actions they demonstrated they thought it was necessary and essential and not temporary. Modern day attempts to diminish polygamy's importance to early saints diminish their real sacrifices.

Edited October 9, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[canard78]

Per FAIR:

 

Other historians put it at 20-30%.  Given that if 1 out of 10 men practiced polygamy, the number of females practicing polygamy would be much higher (at least twice) and the number of children born into such families would be higher. What percentage of current members expect exaltation? (i.e. full tithe paying temple worthy.  I'd wager it might be less than the 20-30%!)

 

 

 

I just checked one of your sources and talk about taking stuff out of context! You quoted:

 

 

In context BY was talking about people desiring plural wives out of passion and not principle. Here is the full quote:

 

 

If the rest of your quotes are similar, you might want to revisit and provide context.  

 

A few questions for you and those that think the early church thought polygamy was to be temporary and wasn't necessary. Why did people on the ground interpret church leaders teachings as saying polygamy was required for the highest degree of celestial glory? Second why was there such a resistance to the "revelation" to give polygamy up in 1890? Why did church sanctioned marriages continue through 1904? Why were apostles like John W Taylor willing to get excommunicated over the principle? Did they just miss the message? 

 

I understand the apologetic desire to make everything nice and neat and remove cognitive dissonance, but the people that lived the principle sure thought that it was really important.  Through their lives and actions they demonstrated they thought it was necessary and essential and not temporary. Modern day attempts to diminish polygamy's importance to early saints diminish their real sacrifices.

 

Impressive find SeekingUnderstanding.

 

Rongo, FAIRMormon et al get pretty sniffy about "snipped" JOD quotes when it's the critics doing it. Were you aware that the quote you used had that intro you'd replaced with ellipses?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So what do I do with the statements emphasizing polygamy's importance in exaltation? I think it's clear that it was a requirement for people who were commanded or expected to enter in to it. But this was a tiny minority within the Church.

Who exactly was it that was commanded to live it? How did one receive such a commandment? Can you provide evidence to support your view that only certain individuals were called to live it (talking Utah polygamy and not Nauvoo obviously)? My understanding of the typical arrangement was that the individuals involved made their desires known to the leadership and in almost all cases such marriages were approved.  This was the case with my ancestors that practiced polygamy.  They were not "called" or specifically "commanded" (aside from general exhortations from the pulpit to practice polygamy) to take a particular husband or wife and they exhibited some choice in the matter. 

Edited October 9, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[JLHPROF]

Who exactly was it that was commanded to live it? How did one receive such a commandment? Can you provide evidence to support your view that only certain individuals were called to live it (talking Utah polygamy and not Nauvoo obviously)? My understanding of the typical arrangement was that the individuals involved made their desires known to the leadership and in almost all cases such marriages were approved.  This was the case with my ancestors that practiced polygamy.  They were not "called" or specifically "commanded" (aside from general exhortations from the pulpit to practice polygamy) to take a particular husband or wife and they exhibited some choice in the matter. 

 

You said it exactly perfectly.  It is another urban myth in the church concerning polygamy that you had to be specifically called to live it.  It was taught as a required commandment.  There are several church myths (some more believable than others) concerning the reason for polygamy, but in the end the only reason the church leaders ever gave to the members at the time was that God required it, especially for exaltation.

[wenglund]

Speaking of myths, and looking at the feasibility of the so-called "required commandment," if there were 100,000 worthy adult males in the Church during the 1880's, and 126,000 worthy adult women, how many of the worthy adult males could possibly obey the "required commandment"--assuming all but 2% of the adult males were married at least once and remained married?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 9, 2013 by wenglund

[rongo]

 

 

 

Percentage rates of people following polygamy don't refute the official teaching that it was a necessity for exaltation.

Those insisting that it was taught and perceived as a necessity for exaltation need to explain why the vast majority of the Church didn’t try to practice it. Especially when the claim is that this is how the “people on the ground” perceived it. They also need to explain why the Brethren who repeatedly explained their understanding (and how they arrived at it) that 90%+ of the Church didn’t follow it, *never* address over 90% of the Church not even attempting to live something that was ostensibly clearly insisted on as necessary for exalation.

 

This quote says nothing about polygamy not being necessary for exaltation.  It simply says that women should not be forced into marriage and are free to choose their husbands.

 

It doesn’t “simply” say that. It addresses those who “will tell you that you will go into eternity and find yourselves without husbands, and cannot get an exaltation --- that you cannot have this, that, or the other, unless you are sealed to them.” You need to explain why Brigham Young didn’t append his advice “never be sealed to any man unless you wish them to be” with “but make sure that you get sealed to somebody, because if you’re not, you can’t obtain exaltation.”

 

This was not a prophecy or expectation of the ending of plural marriage, it is just Brigham saying that whatever God wants takes priority over any gospel doctrine.

 

True. It isn’t “just” Brigham saying that generally whatever God wants takes priority (that goes without saying), he was specifically addressing whether this were possible in the case of polygamy. When you put that with the items from CHC I quoted, it is clear that the Brethren thought about and considered, in the 1860s, ending something you insist they insisted upon as being necessary for everyone’s exaltation. That doesn’t mesh with your level of insistence.

 

But neither of these quotes specify that polygamy was not necessary, whether temporally or for exaltation.

 

It was quite clearly regarded necessary, both temporally and for exaltation --- but not in every case. See above, passim. What these quotes *do* show is that the Brethren did set down some instances where polygamy would be stopped *without revelation.* Hypothetical, yes, but you are the one claiming it was taught to be essential to exaltation, worlds without end.

 

But as the D&C tells us, if God does revoke a law (even for a season) we lose a blessing.

 

Absolute agreement from me on this. Not all things that God allows through revelation make Him happy, or bless us.

[rongo]

 

Other historians put it at 20-30%.  Given that if 1 out of 10 men practiced polygamy, the number of females practicing polygamy would be much higher (at least twice) and the number of children born into such families would be higher.

 

 

Historical quibbling. All that my quotes show was what *the Brethren* themselves put the number at (90%). If the actual number (and there will never be historical certainty --- historical quibbling is never-ending) ends up being lower than that, that still doesn’t change the fact that that is what those Brethren back then thought it was.

 

 

 

What percentage of current members expect exaltation? (i.e. full tithe paying temple worthy.  I'd wager it might be less than the 20-30%!)

 

That’s a very good point. I disagree with your contention that the Brethren regarded the 90% (in their minds) who didn’t participate in polygamy as being in the same condition in the hereafter as our total inactives in our day. Are you really claiming that they regarded people who in all other ways kept their covenants but did not practice polygamy the same way we regard people today who are not temple worthy?

 

 

 

I just checked one of your sources and talk about taking stuff out of context! . . . In context BY was talking about people desiring plural wives out of passion and not principle

 

 

 

canard78 wrote:rongo, FAIRMormon et al get pretty sniffy about "snipped" JOD quotes when it's the critics doing it. Were you aware that the quote you used had that intro you'd replaced with ellipses?

 

I’m the one who included the ellipses. I typed my quotes by hand straight out of the volumes (no internet access when I compiled them from my notes for this). Many of my ellipses were simply to reduce the amount of typing necessary (redundancy, irrelevancy, etc.). I gave the references; people are free to check them all they want.

 

In this case, the fact that Brigham Young began specifically addressing “polygamy out of passion” (i.e., lustful, less-than-holy reasons) is irrelevant. He then goes on to say what I quoted: if the Lord reveals that it should be abolished, then that is what we will do. That was the main point of that passage --- much more so than “polygamy out of passion.”

 

By the way ---- while we’re talking about omitted material, Brigham Young goes on to say in that same passage “I am almost sixty years old; and if I live now for passion, I pray the Lord Almighty to take my life from the earth.”  Brigham Young’s cutting wit remains underappreciated, in my book, by those who only know him through correlated manuals and books.

 

 

 

A few questions for you and those that think the early church thought polygamy was to be temporary and wasn't necessary.

 

Again, I think that it *was* necessary for the exaltation of some --- primarily as communicated to those individuals by the Holy Ghost. I don’t think it was a hard-and-fast, blanket rule taught and applied to the whole church (10-30% “hearken rate,” etc.). That it was perceived at least hypothetically as possibly temporary is self-evident.

 

 

 

Why did people on the ground interpret church leaders teachings as saying polygamy was required for the highest degree of celestial glory?

 

People on the ground? You mean all of those who didn’t practice it? Your best case scenario still has 70% of the Church not doing it, still a staggering number.

 

 

 

Second why was there such a resistance to the "revelation" to give polygamy up in 1890? Why did church sanctioned marriages continue through 1904? Why were apostles like John W Taylor willing to get excommunicated over the principle? 

 

Two things. First, it’s impossible to stop a freight train at full speed on a dime. And the “non-polygs” still had an abiding admiration for the “polygs,” who formed an aristocracy of sorts. I liken it to how most Catholics, the vast majority, don’t practice things vital in the Catholic Church (i.e., birth control, divorce, etc.). They aren’t regarded as “good” Catholics, but they admire and respect the “good” Catholics. And when the Catholic Church is under fire, these “not good” Catholics are fiercely loyal and proud. Similarly, non-polyg Mormons admired those who did practice it, and did not like seeing the government and the Church’s enemies prevail, even though they themselves did not have the wherewithal to practice it. They were the epitome of those Brigham Young described as “polygamists at least in your faith” (another passage in my favor that I ellipsed out because it didn’t immediately relate to my quotes at hand).

 

 

 

I understand the apologetic desire to make everything nice and neat and remove cognitive dissonance, but the people that lived the principle sure thought that it was really important.

 

Nobody is arguing otherwise. Both sides of my family practiced it extensively (poor and rich alike). I will go further than you and say that even those that didn’t live the principle (the vast majority of the Church) thought it was really important, too (see above).

 

 

 

Modern day attempts to diminish polygamy's importance to early saints diminish their real sacrifices.

 

I think you’re going out of your way to be a drama queen here. Having an honest intellectual discussion about the degree to which it was regarded as essential to exaltation or hypothetically temporary doesn’t diminish anybody’s sacrifices.

Edited October 9, 2013 by rongo

[JLHPROF]

Those insisting that it was taught and perceived as a necessity for exaltation need to explain why the vast majority of the Church didn’t try to practice it. Especially when the claim is that this is how the “people on the ground” perceived it. They also need to explain why the Brethren who repeatedly explained their understanding (and how they arrived at it) that 90%+ of the Church didn’t follow it, *never* address over 90% of the Church not even attempting to live something that was ostensibly clearly insisted on as necessary for exalation.

 

It was quite clearly regarded necessary, both temporally and for exaltation --- but not in every case. See above, passim. What these quotes *do* show is that the Brethren did set down some instances where polygamy would be stopped *without revelation.* Hypothetical, yes, but you are the one claiming it was taught to be essential to exaltation, worlds without end.

 

 

Ok, I get where you're coming from now.  You acknowledge that it was taught that it was necessary for exaltation, but seem to think that it only applies to those who were "called to live it" to use the popular term.  Did I get it right?

 

I think that it was never taught as necessary for salvation, but only for exaltation, and I believe that it was applied to membership as a whole.  The quotes I provided back that up.  However, I also agree with you that there was no expectation that 100% of the membership were ever going to live to that level.

 

I think the 90% number is a bit off (most estimates put polygamous numbers at 25-30% of members at their peak, but maybe 10% over time).

And the explanation as to why so many did choose to practice polygamy is a simple one - how many of the 15 million church members are Temple recommend carrying, tithing paying, covenant keeping, on their way to exaltation saints...(maybe 20%).  People choose not to follow the laws of exaltation everyday, even if they know better.

 

Oh, and I never said that it was essential to exaltation worlds without end.  But I have professed my belief in what was taught by so many GAs that plural marriage is the family order which God always lives by and if we want exaltation to Godhood we'd better be prepared for it.

Edited October 9, 2013 by JLHPROF

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Speaking of myths, and looking at the feasibility of the so-called "required commandment," if there were 100,000 worthy adult males in the Church during the 1880's, and 126,000 worthy adult women, how many of the worthy adult males could possibly obey the "required commandment"--assuming all but 2% of the adult males were married at least once and remained married?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

28% of the men and 44% of the women. ~40% of the children would be raised in polygamous households. What myths were we talking about?

 

ETA: You are also assuming that all the men wanted polygamy? I'd say given the rhetoric, there was a substantial group that did not want it.  So the percent of men open to polygamy who actually practiced is probably higher. None of this has anything to do with whether it was taught and understood as a requirement.

Edited October 9, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[rongo]

Who exactly was it that was commanded to live it? How did one receive such a commandment? Can you provide evidence to support your view that only certain individuals were called to live it (talking Utah polygamy and not Nauvoo obviously)? 

Specific answers to this would be an interesting research project. I think it's clear that, while there were important talks given over decades emphasizing the importance of celestial marriage (not just polygamy), there are also strong indications that it wasn't that simple of an issue (and wasn't perceived by them to be that simple of an issue). I mean, 70% of the Church didn't practice it, best case scenario.

 

B.H. Roberts records in his autobiography wrestling with whether to enter into polygamy, and being against it, but being persuaded by Erastus Snow's wonderful example with his wives. It was Elder Snow's example and his obvious relationships with his wives that convinced him that it can work and be good for all involved, and he decided to do it.

 

It seems to me that it was like this with most. They pondered and prayed about counsel from the pulpit, and made individual decisions. I think it rested mainly on people's consciences, except where specifically called to by priesthood leaders (which happened, too).

 

My understanding of the typical arrangement was that the individuals involved made their desires known to the leadership and in almost all cases such marriages were approved.

 

I don't think they were "basically" rubber-stamped and approved almost automatically. This would also be an interesting research project.