New Essay On Polygamy From Lds.org

[pogi]

After reading the new article addressing polygamy, I have to say that I found it rather boring.  Maybe my expectations were too high.  Curiously, it only addresses polygamy as practiced from 1847-1890, thereby skirting around the relatively difficult issues of polygamy and its controversial beginnings as practiced by Joseph.  Are they going to release a second installment addressing polygamy from 1833-1847?   Joseph Smith was only casually mentioned once as the recipient of the revelation.  Because it only addresses polygamy from 1847-1890, Polyandry was never addressed.

 

The only "difficult" issue that it addressed is that polygamy was indeed practiced on an "exceptional basis" after the manifesto.  It was more of an admission than an explanation as to why.  It also briefly addressed the young age of women (girls) that were commonly married at "age 16 or 17 or, infrequently, younger" 

 

If this is intended to prevent further disillusionment, I think they missed the bullet. 

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&query=polygamy

Edited December 17, 2013 by pogi

[Tacenda]

I think I heard there will be an installment with the Nauvoo period. I'll be very impressed and grateful if it happens. If it doesn't, then will some on here agree that it gets swept under the rug?

[juliann]

And they never called it doctrine.  Cut them some slack, Pogi.  Let people digest this and then there can be more.  I think the bigger problem are those who think that polygamy will return because it is "doctrine". 

[BCSpace]

After reading the new article addressing polygamy, I have to say that I found it rather boring.  Maybe my expectations were too high.

 

Certainly nothing new.  The doctrine of plural marriage remains unchanged.  What were you hoping for?  And no, I am not hoping plural marriage will return.

Edited December 17, 2013 by BCSpace

[pogi]

What were you hoping for?  

 

I was hoping that they would address the issues that people are leaving the church over.   Maybe later.

[Stone holm]

And they never called it doctrine.  Cut them some slack, Pogi.  Let people digest this and then there can be more.  I think the bigger problem are those who think that polygamy will return because it is "doctrine".

It was always doctrine and it was always limited to certain times, the Church shouldn't be faulted on that. In the eternal sense there are many living polygamists in the Church, including myself...am sealed to my deceased wife and to one of her best friends who is my current companion. Get over it, polygamy is doctrine.

[BCSpace]

I was hoping that they would address the issues that people are leaving the church over.   Maybe later.

 

I would agree that often the message someone is getting is not coming from the Church or other faithful sources and so those decisions are based on anti Mormon sources which in my experience are never accurate (and rarely try to be) and of course always accentuate the negative.  From where I am, I see a good deal of the cases in my area where people leave the Church and historical issues like these aren't anywhere near the top of the list though they often get inserted into the very end of many cases to justify past actions or statements that had nothing to do with Church history or doctrine in the first place.

 

I would also agree that often these issues are a stumbling block for many who might otherwise join the Church, but my experience is that these things lead to as many faithful seekers as unfaithful.

 

I'd be curious to know what these issues are that you are seeing. Polyandry, for example, has been shown to be a red herring and the issue of age (the Church did speak to the latter the in the new topical addition) as well.

[juliann]

Certainly nothing new.  The doctrine of plural marriage remains unchanged.  What were you hoping for?  And no, I am not hoping plural marriage will return.

Where was it called doctrine?  I see commandment/practice/principle. If you want to see doctrine in there you will have to scribble it in the margins on your computer screen.   It goes so far as to say that LDS were expected to accept the principle (no doctrine mentioned) during the years it was taught.  Well, we don't live in those years now and it's not taught anymore.

 

 

During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God.

 

Stoneholm, everyone is going to be sealed to everyone they were married to...as currently happens in work for the dead.  If you die first, your current wife can seek special permission to be sealed to her second husband as well.

[Brian 2.0]

If you die first, your current wife can seek special permission to be sealed to her second husband as well.

 

So this happens?  I always knew about the other way around with a man being sealed to their deceased with AND their new wife, but I didn't think it worked the other way.  

 

Are both situations treated equally or is it more difficult for a women to obtain permission in this than a man?

[BCSpace]

Where was it called doctrine? I see commandment/practice/principle.

 

Commandments and principles taught by the Church aren't doctrine?  Try that one on your local Gospel Doctrine class...

 

 

At worst, it's doctrine merely because the Church has published what we should believe about it in this very topic on lds.org.

[pogi]

I would agree that often the message someone is getting is not coming from the Church or other faithful sources and so those decisions are based on anti Mormon sources which in my experience are never accurate (and rarely try to be) and of course always accentuate the negative.  From where I am, I see a good deal of the cases in my area where people leave the Church and historical issues like these aren't anywhere near the top of the list though they often get inserted into the very end of many cases to justify past actions or statements that had nothing to do with Church history or doctrine in the first place.

 

Disillusionment is a major reason for people leaving the church.  It is my understanding that the reason for this new series of articles is in part to combat disillusionment.  Unsettling information does not only come from anti sources.  Take the explenations for the race ban for example. 

 

I'd be curious to know what these issues are that you are seeing. Polyandry, for example, has been shown to be a red herring and the issue of age (the Church did speak to the latter the in the new topical addition) as well.

 

I hesitate to state what issues I have with polygamy and its early practices.  I will most certainly be accused by some (from past experience) of maligning the prophet, which is unfortunate.  It always hurts to be accused of evil intent towards the prophet.  I love Joseph and admire him more than just about any man in history, but there is some unsettling history surrounding him that I would like to hear addressed by the church.

Edited December 17, 2013 by pogi

[juliann]

Commandments and principles taught by the Church aren't doctrine?  Try that one on your local Gospel Doctrine class...

 

 

At worst, it's doctrine merely because the Church has published what we should believe about it in this very topic on lds.org.

 You try explaining what the WOW was before it was a doctrine to your GD class.  The Laban incident was a commandment not doctrine for everyone. Building the ark was a commandment.  And on and on and on.  Good grief. 

 

So this happens?  I always knew about the other way around with a man being sealed to their deceased with AND their new wife, but I didn't think it worked the other way.  

 

Are both situations treated equally or is it more difficult for a women to obtain permission in this than a man?

 

You have to know the individuals since this is obviously not public so it would be impossible to know the frequency.  A man has to get a clearance which is essentially the same process (as I understand it).  I got a temple cancellation and it wasn't overwhelming. But he doesn't have to get permission for a second sealing, only be cleared to go ahead which seems somewhat unequal.  But I don't know what they are asking so who knows.   Since polygamy advocates are usually those who find women being given equal access to husbands distasteful, I can see why this is kept private.

[juliann]

I hesitate to state what issues I have with polygamy and its early practices.  I will most certainly be accused by some (from past experience) of maligning the prophet, which is unfortunate.  It always hurts to be accused of evil intent towards the prophet.  I love Joseph and admire him more than just about any man in history, but there is some unsettling history surrounding him that I would like to hear addressed by the church.

I think few know about the circumstances surrounding the start of polygamy (few know how many wives he had let alone how he got them).  I don't see any way to extricate Joseph from bad behavior, we have absolutely no basis on which to justify trickery and dishonesty towards a wife.  So this is something I just have to shelf while remembering his other remarkable traits and that God works through imperfect people....which I am pretty sure is the message they are trying to convey rather than the prophet will tell you everything you need to know.  They preach spiritual preparedness, now they are teaching it.

[Stone holm]

Where was it called doctrine?  I see commandment/practice/principle. If you want to see doctrine in there you will have to scribble it in the margins on your computer screen.   It goes so far as to say that LDS were expected to accept the principle (no doctrine mentioned) during the years it was taught.  Well, we don't live in those years now and it's not taught anymore.

 

Stoneholm, everyone is going to be sealed to everyone they were married to...as currently happens in work for the dead.  If you die first, your current wife can seek special permission to be sealed to her second husband as well.

Seriously, are you really arguing that plural marriage is not doctrinal?

[juliann]

Seriously, are you really arguing that plural marriage is not doctrinal?

Can you produce a collection of quotes from current leaders saying that it is?

[Calm]

Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son. Is that doctrine itself or an action taken based on doctrine.

Circumcision----doctrine or a practice that expressed the doctrine of covenanting with God. If it is doctrine, the all circumcisions are the covenant itself even if the person getting it is having a medical procedure done and has no clue it is a sign of God's covenant with Israel.

Wow...is it doctrine that wine is forbidden or a practice based on a doctrine of obedience and separation from the world. If the first, then Christ will be a sinner when he comes again and partakes of wine with his followers, if the second, God simply must announce the practice is no longer in force and we drink wine to celebrate the renewal of the world and covenants, circumcision is removed as a practice of covenanting and replaced with baptism.

[canard78]

Given it specifically states that it's an article about Utah polygamy then I'm not too disappointed. I hope that means there is also an article on the way for the Joseph Smith polygamy era.

FWIW, you can find polyandry on the official church website.

Search "polyandrous marriages" and you get this search result:

http://www.lds.org/search?lang=eng&query=Polyandrous+marriages

(Click on the josephsmithpapers link. It's an official church website so "fair game" to quote it if needed)

[canard78]

This link:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/doc/introduction-to-journals-volume-2

Several later documents suggest that several women who were already married to other men were, like Marinda Hyde, married or sealed to Joseph Smith. Available evidence indicates that some of these apparent polygynous/polyandrous marriages took place during the years covered by this journal. At least three of the women reportedly involved in these marriages—Patty Bartlett Sessions, Ruth Vose Sayers, and Sylvia Porter Lyon—are mentioned in the journal, though in contexts very much removed from plural marriage. Even fewer sources are extant for these complex relationships than are available for Smith’s marriages to unmarried women, and Smith’s revelations are silent on them. Having surveyed the available sources, historian Richard L. Bushman concludes that these polyandrous marriages—and perhaps other plural marriages of Joseph Smith—were primarily a means of binding other families to his for the spiritual benefit and mutual salvation of all involved.

[juliann]

 Smith’s revelations are silent on them.

 

Except for that verse in 132 that explains how women who are already with a man can be with another....

[Storm Rider]

This just gets monotonous and produces the situation where people are just breathing their own ether. 

 

Too often individuals it seems that while looking at a great painting masterpiece will focus on some obscure point in the bottom right corner and forget about the entire picture. What would we say to the person that while observing Caravaggio's "Conversion of Saint Paul" all they talked about is the top right corner?  Some saints seem to do this all the time and their focus is solely on one location. 

 

We don't run the church; guess what, we will not suffer for the Church doing anything wrong either. What is clear to me is that I will only suffer for my own sins and not anyone else's. If the leaders have done something wrong, it is their responsibility before their Master. They bear responsibility and not one person will suffer any eternal problems for their shortcomings. 

 

Here is the choice; be mature enough to see the whole picture and appreciate all that God does right regardless of the weaknesses of humanity. We are his instruments and the same fashion we judge others will be the same manner in which we will be judged. It seems like we get the same comments, the same incessant whining about the same topics. There is certainly a benefit of having a place to share, but this is getting really bit over the top. I guess maybe it is me and I should just ignore these topics when they are discussed again, and again, and again. 

 

When you find that perfect church with those perfect leaders and all is right, let me know. Until then, try looking at the whole picture. 

[bluebell]

Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son. Is that doctrine itself or an action taken based on doctrine.

Circumcision----doctrine or a practice that expressed the doctrine of covenanting with God. If it is doctrine, the all circumcisions are the covenant itself even if the person getting it is having a medical procedure done and has no clue it is a sign of God's covenant with Israel.

Wow...is it doctrine that wine is forbidden or a practice based on a doctrine of obedience and separation from the world. If the first, then Christ will be a sinner when he comes again and partakes of wine with his followers, if the second, God simply must announce the practice is no longer in force and we drink wine to celebrate the renewal of the world and covenants, circumcision is removed as a practice of covenanting and replaced with baptism.

 

Is there some reason that something can't be doctrine, while also not being eternal?

[Mystery Meat]

WARNING: MY OPINION IS ABOUT TO FOLLOW!!!

 

The thought of me having more then one wife makes me uncomfortable. I have no desire to have more than one wife. Having said that, I think it is hard to conclude that polygamy is not Mormon doctrine. We do not currently practice it at this time. In fact, the scriptures have said that the Lord has that privilege of determining when his people will and won't practice polygamy. Right now, thankfully, we don't. But D&C 132 combined with scriptures in other scripture seem to build a strong case for polygamy (men having more than one wife). Never is there anything that talks about women having more then one husband, even in D&C 132. That section does talk about a wife being taken from an unfaithful husband and given to another, but seeing any other implication there is in my opinion nothing more then wresting the scriptures. Either way I am not going to lose sleep over it. If in the next life I have more then one wife I am sure that my prospective will have changed and I will understand the mind and will of the Lord. Until then, I am not going to worry.

[Stone holm]

Where was it called doctrine?  I see commandment/practice/principle. If you want to see doctrine in there you will have to scribble it in the margins on your computer screen.   It goes so far as to say that LDS were expected to accept the principle (no doctrine mentioned) during the years it was taught.  Well, we don't live in those years now and it's not taught anymore.

 

Stoneholm, everyone is going to be sealed to everyone they were married to...as currently happens in work for the dead.  If you die first, your current wife can seek special permission to be sealed to her second husband as well.

 

Okay, I reread the article.  The idea that plural marriage when the Lord has need of it is not doctrinal, because the essay does not specifically use the word "doctrine" IMNSHO is totally bogus.  The essay clearly uses the terms "revelation" and refers to Divine commands.  The doctrine is that if the Lord has need of it then it will be practiced, if He does not need it, then amongst the living it will not be practiced.  That is very clear in the article, and has, to my estimation, been taught for a very long time.  Speculation as to when and if it will ever be reinstituted is just that speculation.  Is it an eternal doctrine?  Well, unless you are saying that the Lord is going to rip apart sealings, break up families, the answer has to be, yes there are going to be eternal families in the hereafter where there are more than one woman sealed to one man.  The argument you are giving reminds me of some of the specious Constitutional arguments that well some specific thing isn't said in the Constitution therefore it is not included.  All the words and statements normally and reasonably intended to convey that something is a doctrine were used in the essay.

[CA Steve]

Okay, I reread the article.  The idea that plural marriage when the Lord has need of it is not doctrinal, because the essay does not specifically use the word "doctrine" IMNSHO is totally bogus.  The essay clearly uses the terms "revelation" and refers to Divine commands.  The doctrine is that if the Lord has need of it then it will be practiced, if He does not need it, then amongst the living it will not be practiced.  That is very clear in the article, and has, to my estimation, been taught for a very long time.  Speculation as to when and if it will ever be reinstituted is just that speculation.  Is it an eternal doctrine?  Well, unless you are saying that the Lord is going to rip apart sealings, break up families, the answer has to be, yes there are going to be eternal families in the hereafter where there are more than one woman sealed to one man.  The argument you are giving reminds me of some of the specious Constitutional arguments that well some specific thing isn't said in the Constitution therefore it is not included.  All the words and statements normally and reasonably intended to convey that something is a doctrine were used in the essay.

Given that billions and billions of sealings will need to be done or have been done for the dead, who have the choice to accept or reject the sealing, do you really think the realignment of a few thousand families in the hereafter is all that significant? Do you really think that some of those women who were reluctant to be part of polygamy but did so anyways will not have the option to seek a mate elsewhere? I do not picture God "ripping apart" anything, but I also can see where eternal participation would be optional. God isn't going to force anyone to be in a polygamous relationship either.

[Brian 2.0]

I guess their going with the date of when it was "instituted among the members" on this.  Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage before the 1940s, even by church records.