The Stumbling Blocks Of The Church

[bluebell]

Can you clarify please? Are you saying that thousands of additional people were born because of polygamy or that thousands of different people were born because of polygamy?

 

I am not sure if you are asserting that polygamy increased the birth rate or that it just brought different people into the world as a result.

 

I'm just asserting that sometimes polygamy plays a huge role in which families people are born into.

 

After all, God's chosen people, the House of Israel, exist because of polygamy. 

[Danzo]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rkrzewzliwbsrvl/2014%20Europe%20Area%20Plan%20Executive%20Version%20-%20English.pdf

 

Looked through it quickly, but I can't find where it says membership has gone down in the last two years?

 

perhaps you can point out what page.

[foster]

Robert Smith, I believe there are now 3 First Presidency letters calling the ban Doctrine. Most recently, a few years ago, Elder Holland called it Doctrine - past tense of course.

[Kenngo1969]

You can't be serious. Well you can be, but I disagree, I guess. God's elect will extend far beyond the membership of the Church and the Church will probably have quite a few not on the list of elect on it's roles. Well, that's my assumption.

 

I agree with you that we ought not become Pharasaical in our possession of truth, of authority, and so on.  And I agree that "not everyone that saith unto me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matthew 7:21), and that we ought not say, "God, [we] thank Thee that [we] are not as other men [and women]" (Luke 18:11), and that one need not be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ to hearken to God's voice.  However, the Doctrine & Covenants clearly defines the Lord's Elect.  See Doctrine & Covenants 29:7, 33:5-6.  And there's a reason why the Scriptures say that "strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Matthew 7:14).

 

You're not playing fairly. I'm leaving out the notion that God sanctioned the two things.  

 

 

I wasn't aware I was "playing" at all.  In any event, there are plenty of reasons for people to ridicule (or at least to avoid joining) the Church of Jesus Christ and its members.  If it isn't polygyny or the Priesthood ban, it would be something else.

 

Maybe so. I'm not talking about handling ridicule though. I'm just thinking out loud about what might have been.

 

 

Fine.  I think the Lord and His Prophets know more what "might have been," and what yet will be, than either one of us do.  I think He's capable of doing His own work, human imperfection notwithstanding.  As Elder Holland so wryly and eloquently put it in a recent Conference, imperfect human beings are all God has ever had to work with: that must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it.  

Edited December 10, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Buzzard]

Remember, the hard doctrine of Polygamy and the much easier to accept doctrine of eternal families and eternal increase are different leaves of the same doctrinal branch. And since we still allow widowers to be sealed to a second spouse, it's not a doctrine we have renounced.  And eternal families are one of the core doctrines of the church. One could say that along with the Atonement, it is THE core doctrine of the church, the reason that the Priesthood was restored. After all, Malachi says that if we don't turn our hearts to our extended families, and they to us, he'll fry the whole kit and kaboodle when he returns.  And I would go so far as to say that the concept of eternal marriage has attracted more potential converts than the practice of polygamy has turned away.

Blacks and the Priesthood, there are enough threads going on that. 

Sorry for using the word "and" so much in that post.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Buzzard

[BCSpace]

If the Church did not incorporate Polygamy nor the priesthood ban it would be 16 times the Church it is today. 

 

True or false?

 

Could be true.  However, size of a church is no indication of it's truthfulness.  Indeed we are described as 'leaven', a very small ingredient destined to do big things.  In addition, as per the scripture, 'narrow is the way and few there be who find it'.  Consider also part of the reason for the mission of Christ in Matthew 10:34-38.

 

Do we really want out Church to become a large a spacious building?

 

When I think of the Church and it's history and practices these two issues embarrass me.  I have no particular argument that makes them seem justifiable.  But they were, they are.  They are our reality. 

 

I question whether the Church is really making better people, but if that is the purpose of the Church its a shame there these two things happened.  I think without them, the Church would be far more squeaky clean, presentable and acceptable.

 

Thoughts? condemnations?

 

 

I agree those are stumbling blocks for some people, but the Church continues to 'justify' them even if some private explanations are not considered valid.  I consider those justifications to be reasonable, scriptural, doctrinal and not racist or sexist in any way.

[stemelbow]

This is the best thread I've ever seen in any discussion forum.  Okay, I'm exaggerating, but there has been some extremely good posts offered.  when I get time I'll get back to some of the comments and offer my own useless thoughts. 

 

Thanks.

[AndyDnom]

So Father Abraham and his descendants were basically adulterers and cheaters?  And when the State of Israel was founded and outlawed polygyny, it was wrong to allow already polygamous Jews to continue to live in Israel with their multiple wives -- just not marry any more wives?  Is that what you are suggesting?  Because it isn't clear to me where you are getting your folklore.

 

I don't personally believe that god has ever told any man to take extra sexual partners, whether in Waco, Colorado City, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Nauvoo, or anywhere else. I love that I don't believe this, because it seems when people have to convince themselves that this is not a terrible thing, they end up defending terrible things and terribel behavior.

 

I don't know much about "father abraham" but he's not my father, and if he took a bunch of extra sexual partners, then to me, he is an adulterer, whether he claims it was authorized by god or not.

[AndyDnom]

Could be true.  However, size of a church is no indication of it's truthfulness.  Indeed we are described as 'leaven', a very small ingredient destined to do big things.  In addition, as per the scripture, 'narrow is the way and few there be who find it'.  Consider also part of the reason for the mission of Christ in Matthew 10:34-38.

 

Do we really want out Church to become a large a spacious building?

 

 

I agree those are stumbling blocks for some people, but the Church continues to 'justify' them even if some private explanations are not considered valid.  I consider those justifications to be reasonable, scriptural, doctrinal and not racist or sexist in any way.

 

You're not answering the question. He didn't ask if "we" want the church to be big or not, he asked if polygamy caused it to be smaller and less popular than it would have been without polygamy. What say ye?

[BCSpace]

Could be true.  However, size of a church is no indication of it's truthfulness.  Indeed we are described as 'leaven', a very small ingredient destined to do big things.  In addition, as per the scripture, 'narrow is the way and few there be who find it'.  Consider also part of the reason for the mission of Christ in Matthew 10:34-38.

 

Do we really want out Church to become a large a spacious building?

 

 

I agree those are stumbling blocks for some people, but the Church continues to 'justify' them even if some private explanations are not considered valid.  I consider those justifications to be reasonable, scriptural, doctrinal and not racist or sexist in any way.

 

 

You're not answering the question. He didn't ask if "we" want the church to be big or not, he asked if polygamy caused it to be smaller and less popular than it would have been without polygamy. What say ye?

 

 

 

I answered that question in the post in question and have highlighted it for you above.  The rest is indeed a question of why would we want the Church to be big and I believe the assumption (erroneous imho) that we do want the Church to be big is implicit in the OP's question.

[AndyDnom]

I think you peace of mind. By definition if you are married to someone you aren't cheating with them. All the available evidence is that the wives of various religious leaders, and members throughout history knew about polygamy. Whether those individual husbands/wives personally didn't like it is beside the point. Various Christian religions have practiced it at one time and/or continue to practice it today.

 

I was born in 1951, but didn't join the Church until 1971. I've known about polygamy since I was old enough to understand the word. As I said I have no personal desire to practice polygamy in mortality, and sociologically it is a dead-end. But aside from those there really is no theological consistent basis to oppose it. The BoM itself condemns it when not commanded by God. That preceeds JS polygamy by years. JS married Emma in 1827, the BoM was published in 1830 and his first polygamous marriage was in 1833.

I don't need a theological basis to oppose polygamy. I oppose it on a personal basis. i guess your argument is that if you can find in the scriptures that god commands polygamy then that makes it okay, and since it was okay in the scriptures, you take joseph smith at his word that he was commanded by god to practice it. I get that, and it is a valid view point.

 

But I do not think god commanded joseph smith or abraham or muhammad or anyone else to take extra wives. My personal opinion is that Joseph Smith, like many men in positions of power and adoration, was presented with the opportunity to have romantic emotional and physical relations with more women than just his wife. But like many men, he felt it would be wrong to cheat on his wife, so he sought a justification from god. I believe that Joseph Smith felt if god would authorize it, then he could have his cake and eat it too. He could be married, and also get to experience different kinds of relations with different kinds of women. I think he legitimately thought god told him to do this, but i don't believe god did. I think the power of suggestion and bias is very strong, and I think Joseph mistook his own wishes for a true communication from god.

 

I do think by the end of his life, he did regret the fallout that polygamy had wrought. But thats a personal opinion, and I can't prove it, though I guess no one can prove the opposite.

[thesometimesaint]

I think polygamy is a interesting but side issue as it relates it an assumed size. Many of our currant leaders are the descendents of polygamists. Would we be significantly bigger or smaller because of that is one of those unanswerable questions. 

[omni]

Isn't the RLDS, especially when it first started, just the LDS church without polygamy and with different men as prophets?

 

Alan makes a good point.  Obviously there is no way to prove your argument since it's just a giant 'what if', but if you are serious in wondering, then looking at the RLDS-a church with the same basic teachings and organizational structure as the LDS in the 1800s-and seeing how they developed without polygamy or the ban would be incredibly important.

Or we could look at the polygamists off-shoots which have the same basic teachings and organizational structure as the LDS in 1800s and see how the developed with polygamy and the ban still in place.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't need a theological basis to oppose polygamy. I oppose it on a personal basis. i guess your argument is that if you can find in the scriptures that god commands polygamy then that makes it okay, and since it was okay in the scriptures, you take joseph smith at his word that he was commanded by god to practice it. I get that, and it is a valid view point.

 

But I do not think god commanded joseph smith or abraham or muhammad or anyone else to take extra wives. My personal opinion is that Joseph Smith, like many men in positions of power and adoration, was presented with the opportunity to have romantic emotional and physical relations with more women than just his wife. But like many men, he felt it would be wrong to cheat on his wife, so he sought a justification from god. I believe that Joseph Smith felt if god would authorize it, then he could have his cake and eat it too. He could be married, and also get to experience different kinds of relations with different kinds of women. I think he legitimately thought god told him to do this, but i don't believe god did. I think the power of suggestion and bias is very strong, and I think Joseph mistook his own wishes for a true communication from god.

 

I do think by the end of his life, he did regret the fallout that polygamy had wrought. But thats a personal opinion, and I can't prove it, though I guess no one can prove the opposite.

 

As I said I don't find the theoretical practice of polygamy in my mortality appealing. I would think long and hard about it God commanded me to do it in my life.

 

My argument isn't what we think of it but what they thought of it.

 

To me marriage would be the last thing such men would think about. To put it crudely; Why buy the cow when all you want is the cream?

[Duncan]

Looked through it quickly, but I can't find where it says membership has gone down in the last two years?

 

perhaps you can point out what page.

 

I am no Mathematic person but yeah I don't see where membership has gone down either, Sac. mtg attendance went from 95-101,000 in 4 years ish! when I went to school, i'd say that's good!

[Glenn101]

As far as polygamy is concerned, I don't think it would have been a stumbling block to global church growth since about 85% of the worls governments allow polygamy.

 

The priesthood ban is debatable in light of the prevailing cultural biases that existed in this country up until late in the past century.

 

This is a topic for for which we have no means of setting up any type of controls, to make any type of quantifiable measurements, so anyone's opinion is just as good as the next.

 

Glenn

[Danzo]

I am no Mathematic person but yeah I don't see where membership has gone down either, Sac. mtg attendance went from 95-101,000 in 4 years ish! when I went to school, i'd say that's good!

perhaps he was referring to a different report.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If the Church did not incorporate Polygamy nor the priesthood ban it would be 16 times the Church it is today. 

 

True or false?

 

When I think of the Church and it's history and practices these two issues embarrass me.  I have no particular argument that makes them seem justifiable.  But they were, they are.  They are our reality. 

 

I question whether the Church is really making better people, but if that is the purpose of the Church its a shame there these two things happened.  I think without them, the Church would be far more squeaky clean, presentable and acceptable.

 

Thoughts? condemnations?

Find this difficult to believe, were not for polygamy and relent peace of isolation in Utah, a very large would not be there. Also even during the ban, black members joined. The NT Chuurch had issues. It is the Holy Spirit that has and will continue to increase our racks.

[stemelbow]

Kind of related to Kenngo's point - I often wonder if all of the difficulty and adversity that the early saints faced because of their "peculiar" practices made them a more resolute people - that without these "all or nothing" kind of doctrines, the membership and leadership would have been more complacent, missionaries less enthusiastic and effective and growth not any better as a result.  Or even possibly the church fading into obscurity or being morphed into something generic and unidentifiable from other mainstream Christian denominations. 

 

Fun to kind of imagine the "what ifs".  Personally for me, part of what appeals to me in Mormonism is the dedication and covenants is requires.  I don't desire to be part of a soft-sell spirituality that tells me I get a free pass to feel and do what I want - I don't think I would be a better person for it.  I'm too lazy!  :-)

 

I agree about what ifs.  you simply can't know.  But I do question your first paragraph.  What are we, chop liver?  I mean if it was so important for the early saints to face such hardships and tests of faith why are we left with such an easier path?  I mean unless of course our teachings on homosexuality is much like the teachings of the past on blacks and their unworthy status for priesthood.  hmm...something to think about I guess.

[stemelbow]

The original question relies on the assumption that growth is dependent on the white western world that abhors such things as polygamy.

 

Of course it is.  Indeed without polygamy--meaning if JS was never told to practice it and thus no LDS ever did--we'd be left with far less of a stigma.  The Nauvoo Expositor probably would have never been written--JS probably then would not have been sent to Carthage to face trial.  The greys would not have ransacked the jail and would not have killed Joseph too.  I'm not saying opposition would not have been strong in JS' lifetime.  But it may not have been as strong.  And even if it were other's on the outside might have found more reason to be sympathetic to the Mormons and might have been more willing to listen and feel the Spirit.  By the time of the pioneers crossing the LDS Church might have been 6 times what it was. 

 

Of course we'd never know.  But we do know large successes were attained in Britain and elsewhere early on.  Sometimes when these British saints came on over the pond and witnessed polygamy they straightway left again.  What a joke that came out as. 

 

  

I have to acknowledge I am who I am because of polygamy but I'd really wonder why the church hasn't removed its shadow from women.   But I wonder if polygamy might be a help in male dominated societies by appealing to male superiority.  If the males join because of patriarchy they can then be taught how to elevate their women that do not have cultural or political support.   As much as I think the church needs to up their inclusion of women, the current teachings about women and the honorable place they hold in the family and society would be a huge step up for many. 

 

In other words, some of this may actually be helpful in the big picture that we never look at. (And when racism is admitted to people are willing to set it aside...they have to, everything was once racist.)  How would/should our thinking change if we could ever acknowledge that our western culture will become inconsequential in a truly global church that is dominated by Africans and Hispanics?   And given the softening of China,  I don't think adding them in the future is a stretch. 

 

Me either.  but perhaps by now we would have been such an influence in the west that we would have already made much more significant increases in Africa, and the Far east.  In my mind, in a way, it's a shame.  We could have been so much more. 

 

Now we have some 14 million members most of which aren't practicing or so I'm told.  Most?  that would indicate less than .1% of the world are actual Mormons.  We ain't nothing. 

[stemelbow]

I would speculate (since we are all speculating here anyway) that D&C 132 (the section that discusses polygamy) is responsible for the bulk of the growth of the church.  With out the doctrines found in that revelation, our church would be a shadow of what it is now.

 

Sealing and eternal families is a teaching whether polygamy or not.  If 132 left out polygamy from it's words, we'd be much better off.  Afterall, right now, we essentially ignore the polygamy part of it and stick to the eternal sealings part.  We'd be much better off without polygamy in there. 

[stemelbow]

Polygamy and the priesthood ban are definitely some of our critics favorite points today.  

 

In the beginning, however, the priesthood ban was not the problem, it was Joseph Smith's abolitionist stance and political involvement.  I think that this is by far the biggest reason for our small numbers.  Had we been political allies with our neighbors, I have no doubt that the church would have flourished back East.  In fact, it is sad to say that had the ban been implemented earlier (and disbanded earlier), it probably would have won us some serious friends and converts.  

 

I disagree.  If the LDS of those days broke every racial barrier, flooded the Church with any African American who would listen, it probably would have caused some of the locals to be more upset.  But in the end, it would have reached out to millions of people that it essentially ignored from the beginning.  We could have started work in Africa as early as we did in the British Isles. 

[stemelbow]

The ban on Negro priesthood, which came into vogue only after the death of Joseph (who ordained them and boldly declared that they should not be slaves), has nothing in common with polygyny -- which is doctrine, even when in abeyance.

 

That ban on Negro priesthood was never doctrine, and we should not blame God for our own shortcomings.  The Mountain Meadows massacre was also not God's fault.  We need to own up to our poor discipleship in some cases, and in other cases our direct opposition to God's plans.

 

We are supposed to be the Saints of God -- His Holy Ones, who do His will.  A tall order, and making excuses and coming up with absurd folklore will not substitute for righteousness.  We need to repent.

 

yep.

[stemelbow]

I think you peace of mind. By definition if you are married to someone you aren't cheating with them. All the available evidence is that the wives of various religious leaders, and members throughout history knew about polygamy. Whether those individual husbands/wives personally didn't like it is beside the point. Various Christian religions have practiced it at one time and/or continue to practice it today.

 

I was born in 1951, but didn't join the Church until 1971. I've known about polygamy since I was old enough to understand the word. As I said I have no personal desire to practice polygamy in mortality, and sociologically it is a dead-end. But aside from those there really is no theological consistent basis to oppose it. The BoM itself condemns it when not commanded by God. That preceeds JS polygamy by years. JS married Emma in 1827, the BoM was published in 1830 and his first polygamous marriage was in 1833.

 

If polygamy is a true principle, so much so as Brigham Young indicated, then we should yearn to live it again.  We should not be so ashamed of it and afraid of it, that we want no part in it, right?  It seems to me every LDS I've ever met would prefer not to live this true and enlightening principle.  That tells me no one really sees it as important at all--probably not even God-sanctioned. 

Edited December 11, 2013 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

And I would go so far as to say that the concept of eternal marriage has attracted more potential converts than the practice of polygamy has turned away.

Blacks and the Priesthood, there are enough threads going on that. 

 

 

I'm not so sure as you about this.  But we can agree to disagree.  We'd never know.