New Essay On Polygamy From Lds.org

[canard78]

Hugh Nibley can disagree all he wants. He was not a prophet, seer, or revealator. J. Reuben Clark is.

 

His name is at the bottom of the following letter which includes theories recently disavowed/condemned by the church today... so not everything he says is worth requoting as gospel truth:

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n5/mode/1up

[Stone holm]

Please stop avoiding.  This is getting to the point where I am going to demand a CFR. Please quote a living prophet in this century who has said polygamy is doctrine.  We already have Pres. Hinckley saying it isn't...and going the route that he was just messin' with us isn't a counter argument because that can be said of any prophet for those not willing to engage in serious conversation.  

 

Are you unaware of the practice of polyandry in Nauvoo?  Why do you demand more scripture than the D&C and JS himself participating in it?

 

Again, please produce those quotes.

I don't understand this are you rejecting the 132nd Section

[canard78]

I am not avoiding anything. I don't think I am the one who needs to provide a CFR, rather you are. I have already explained why. You first need to tell me when any prophet as emphatically disavowed the practice of polygamy by the saints during the early days of the Church not to mention in ancient times. Once you do that the burden is on me. This shouldn't be a hard concept to get. 

 

And I am glad you get to interpret what President Hinckley meant in his Larry King Interview. I offer it as my opinion after reading the entire transcript of the interview and not just a short snippet that President Hinckley was referring to the current practice of polygamy as not being doctrine. You can disagree with me, but my interpretation is just as reasonable as yours, especially considering we have seen no editing or removal of section 132.

 

I am perfectly aware of Nauvoo era polygamy/polyandry.

 

 

I demand more scripture because your interpretation of D&C 132 is full of conjecture and abysmally weak. If you are implying that Joseph Smith participated in women having multiple husbands, and not just standard polygamy, I am issuing a CFR. And I am very much aware of the Law's and I don't buy their story so provide something else if you would be so kind.

 

Are you saying you don't believe Joseph Smith participated in women having multiple husbands?

 

Even when an official church website admits to it?

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

[bluebell]

Only two hits come up if you search "doctrine of polygamy" on lds.org.

 

One is D&C 132 and the other is in the 1979 New Era.

 

If you search "doctrine of plural marriage" you get a few more hits.

 

-A seminary teacher's manual, a couple institute student manuals, and most surprisingly, the blurp describing the information on plural marriage in Utah.

[juliann]

 

 

And I am glad you get to interpret what President Hinckley meant in his Larry King Interview. I offer it as my opinion after reading the entire transcript of the interview and not just a short snippet that President Hinckley was referring to the current practice of polygamy as not being doctrine. You can disagree with me, but my interpretation is just as reasonable as yours, especially considering we have seen no editing or removal of section 132.

 

Do you not understand that no one is disputing the early saints considered it doctrine?  What is in dispute is what it is now considered.  I shouldn't have to keep explaining this.

 

Here is Pres. Hinckley on LDS.org.  That means it is official.  http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng&query=polygamy

 

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.

 

Are you aware of any "doctrine" that is against the law of God?  If polygamy is doctrine, why is Pres. Hinckley saying marriage must be monogamous?  Why was there a Manifesto?

 

 

  If you are implying that Joseph Smith participated in women having multiple husbands, and not just standard polygamy, I am issuing a CFR. And I am very much aware of the Law's and I don't buy their story so provide something else if you would be so kind.

 

You just said that you are aware of the polyandry.  Are you trying to say Joseph wasn't involved in it?   I recommend that you go to the  resuscitated thread started by Don Bradley on polyandry.  This is far too big of a topic to explain here and it is in the category of common knowledge it has been discussed so many times on this board.

 

I'm calling in a CFR on a statement from a living prophet that polygamy is doctrine.  No more deflecting please.

[juliann]

I don't understand this are you rejecting the 132nd Section

  I accept more than those who will not acknowledge vs. 41-42!

[Mystery Meat]

Do you not understand that no one is disputing the early saints considered it doctrine?  What is in dispute is what it is now considered.  I shouldn't have to keep explaining this.

 

Here is Pres. Hinckley on LDS.org.  That means it is official.  http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng&query=polygamy

 

Are you aware of any "doctrine" that is against the law of God?  If polygamy is doctrine, why is Pres. Hinckley saying marriage must be monogamous?  Why was there a Manifesto?

 

You just said that you are aware of the polyandry.  Are you trying to say Joseph wasn't involved in it?   I recommend that you go to the  resuscitated thread started by Don Bradley on polyandry.  This is far too big of a topic to explain here and it is in the category of common knowledge it has been discussed so many times on this board.

 

I'm calling in a CFR on a statement from a living prophet that polygamy is doctrine.  No more deflecting please.

 

I will answer yours when you answer mine.

 

 

 

 I accept more than those who will not acknowledge vs. 41-42!

 

You mean your interpretations of those verses?

[Mystery Meat]

I will, for the sake of time and discussion, retract any arguments I have made about women not having multiple husbands. I will not retract my statement that polygamy is not doctrine. For reference, if it makes you happy, I will cite D&C 132 as well as the Church Handbook of Instructions 1.

[juliann]

I will, for the sake of time and discussion, retract any arguments I have made about women not having multiple husbands. I will not retract my statement that polygamy is not doctrine. For reference, if it makes you happy, I will cite D&C 132 as well as the Church Handbook of Instructions 1.

 

You are confusing the doctrine of marriage with a type of marriage.  That was cleared up in a First Presidency statement. 

 

"Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and eternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonymous terms.  Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages."James R. Clark, Messages Of The First Presidency, 5:329. 

Heber J. Grant

Anthony W. Ivins,

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

 

 

1.  You can call "interpretation" on vs 41-42 all you want but it is a valid reading and gives scriptural basis for JS's polyandry.  Why anyone would fight that is quite strange.  The most you can do is give another interpretation that does not back JS's polyandry but you haven't even offered that. 

2.  You need to quote the Handbook not just say it says what you want it to.

 

I am seriously calling for a CFR re: a quote from a modern prophet calling polygamy "doctrine"...followed up with a post report if you continue dodging it.   If you have something, I sincerely would like to see it because I'm not aware of it.

 

[David T]

I think the new page is great. Very helpful and candid. Look forward to seeing what they do in part two, on Kirtland - Nauvoo polygamy.

[canard78]

I think the new page is great. Very helpful and candid. Look forward to seeing what they do in part two, on Kirtland - Nauvoo polygamy.

 

Apparently Kirtland-Nauvoo is part 1... Utah is part 2. I've heard (mainly bloggernacle rumour mill) that they were both being worked on... but part 1 is a bit trickier so not ready to release yet.

[Mystery Meat]

You are confusing the doctrine of marriage with a type of marriage.  That was cleared up in a First Presidency statement. 

 

 

1.  You can call "interpretation" on vs 41-42 all you want but it is a valid reading and gives scriptural basis for JS's polyandry.  Why anyone would fight that is quite strange.  The most you can do is give another interpretation that does not back JS's polyandry but you haven't even offered that. 

2.  You need to quote the Handbook not just say it says what you want it to.

 

I am seriously calling for a CFR re: a quote from a modern prophet calling polygamy "doctrine"...followed up with a post report if you continue dodging it.   If you have something, I sincerely would like to see it because I'm not aware of it.

 

I am seriously calling for a CFR re: a quote from a modern prophet calling polygamy "not doctrine"...followed up with a post report if you continue dodging it.   If you have something, I sincerely would like to see it because I'm not aware of it.

[Stone holm]

I am seriously calling for a CFR re: a quote from a modern prophet calling polygamy "not doctrine"...followed up with a post report if you continue dodging it.   If you have something, I sincerely would like to see it because I'm not aware of it.

You have some support besides Pres Hinkley's coy statement to back your declaration that polygamy was not doctrinal although The Lord authorizes it from time to time, and many men are sealed t o a deceased wife and a living wife?

[Mystery Meat]

From the Deseret News:

 

 

President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister [inis] Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery. Inis Hunter "will now be laid to rest on the other side," he said. "They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity," he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990. ("Sister Hunter's humor and cheerfulness remembered as she is laid to rest," Deseret News, Oct. 22, 2007).

 

President Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

 

 

Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 2, p. 67, he remarked: "...my wives will be mine in eternity."

 

A poem written by President Lee

 

 

 

My lovely Joan was sent to me: So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity.
"O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee"
(Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p. 17)

 

Elder Oaks at BYU:

 

 

 

When I was 66, my wife June died of cancer. Two years later—a year and a half ago—I married [in the LDS temple] Kristen McMain,the eternal companion who now stands at my side. 

 

For these men, polygamy in the eternities is doctrine. These men are prophets, seers, and revealators. All after the manifesto.

[Mystery Meat]

You have some support besides Pres Hinkley's coy statement to back your declaration that polygamy was not doctrinal although The Lord authorizes it from time to time, and many men are sealed t o a deceased wife and a living wife?

 

That is basically what I am asking Juliann. You and I agree on this issue.

Edited December 18, 2013 by lvjd66

[Stone holm]

From the Deseret News:

 

 

President Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

 

A poem written by President Lee

 

 

Elder Oaks at BYU:

 

 

For these men, polygamy in the eternities is doctrine. These men are prophets, seers, and revealators. All after the manifesto.

Yeah, I find the argument that my eternal companion sitting right beside me is not really my eternal companion or that the mother of six of my children is not also my eternal companion slightly offensive, and I am not easily offended.

[Mystery Meat]

Yeah, I find the argument that my eternal companion sitting right beside me is not really my eternal companion or that the mother of six of my children is not also my eternal companion slightly offensive, and I am not easily offended.

 

I don't blame you. These men all believed this principle. They didn't use the word doctrine, but they don't have to. I think that is using our feeble vocabulary to try and confine eternal principals. It may not be popular but it is doctrine.

[David T]

Apparently Kirtland-Nauvoo is part 1... Utah is part 2. I've heard (mainly bloggernacle rumour mill) that they were both being worked on... but part 1 is a bit trickier so not ready to release yet.

 

That was my impression. There wasn't too much that would be 'new' to most Church members in the Utah years. Some bits more candid than they may be used to, clear references to Post Manifesto Polygamy and the Second Manifesto, and some other things. But nothing earth-shattering. 

 

JS Polygamy - including finding a way to contextualize and introduce the idea of an 1830s relationship with Fanny Alger - will not be easy. I expect it likely following the publication of Journals 3 in the JSPP. Journals 2 had a great intro mentioning the existence of polyandry - but Journals 3 perhaps will add even more nuance

 

This is all very fascinating - especially with the general understanding that it's not now a matter of 'if' the Church will post an in depth article on JS' polygamy, but "when". That in and of itself is huge!

[Stone holm]

That was my impression. There wasn't too much that would be 'new' to most Church members in the Utah years. Some bits more candid than they may be used to, clear references to Post Manifesto Polygamy and the Second Manifesto, and some other things. But nothing earth-shattering. 

 

JS Polygamy - including finding a way to contextualize and introduce the idea of an 1830s relationship with Fanny Alger - will not be easy. I expect it likely following the publication of Journals 3 in the JSPP. Journals 2 had a great intro mentioning the existence of polyandry - but Journals 3 perhaps will add even more nuance

 

This is all very fascinating - especially with the general understanding that it's not now a matter of 'if' the Church will post an in depth article on JS' polygamy, but "when". That in and of itself is huge!

Interesting that this is happening, and so many in the Church are oblivious.

[Calm]

I think they also want to keep the articles short enough so that people don't feel they can't read it in one sitting.  I don't see how they could decently cover all of plural marriage, even in a summary style without having quite a long article.  This way it is broken up into smaller bites that can be more on target throughout the article without having to do too much transitioning from one time period to another.

 

I also think there will be a lot more gaps with the Nauvoo article so that it will have a distinctly different feel to it.  It just makes good editorial sense, imo, to separate them.

[juliann]

From the Deseret News:

 

 

President Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

 

A poem written by President Lee

 

 

Elder Oaks at BYU:

 

 

For these men, polygamy in the eternities is doctrine. These men are prophets, seers, and revealators. All after the manifesto.

You know what a living prophet means.  We have been through this. 

 

I truly don't understand why it is so hard to realize that women can say the same thing as the above quotes.  They are also sealed to their husbands.  Proxy sealings carry all the weight that live ones do or we wouldn't be doing them.  Why do the women keep disappearing in every post no matter how many times they are put back into the sealings?  Do women suddenly lose the feelings the men express or do they just not matter?

Edited December 18, 2013 by juliann

[Calm]

Yeah, I find the argument that my eternal companion sitting right beside me is not really my eternal companion or that the mother of six of my children is not also my eternal companion slightly offensive, and I am not easily offended.

So if a woman said the same thing to you about her second husband, would you tell her be assured she will have both of her eternal companions eternally?

[BlueDreams]

I am seriously calling for a CFR re: a quote from a modern prophet calling polygamy "not doctrine"...followed up with a post report if you continue dodging it.   If you have something, I sincerely would like to see it because I'm not aware of it.

 

Well, out of curiosity to Juliann's CFR for quotes from the prophet that it is, I went on a (quick....I've been working 13 hrs straight today on research and essays. Quick's all I'm giving for this) search for quotes to see what I could find. To be frank, I don't know much about the topic. It's not something that usually peaks my interest. So I won't give too much word to it. From what I found quickly....there does seem to be some level of distinguishing between doctrine and practice when discussing polygamy and marriage bolstering Juliann's/Cal's claims. There isn't the specific words of "polygamy was/is not doctrine" but within the context of the quotes below and the number of BB's quotes that did mention doctrine of PM. It comes off as more of an exceptional command than a full one eternal, all encompassing Law/doctrine of heaven....which is what I get from what Juliann and Cal have mentioned (if I'm wrong, feel free to correct me, you 2, I've on been scanning).   

 

To put it more explicitly, it seems more in line with laban slaying, abraham's sacrifice, etc. There are eternal doctrines tied to these exceptional commands/revelations, but it's not (nor ever was it meant to be) applical in a general sense. Ergo, if it is doctrine, it's not on the same par as phrases such as "the doctrine of Christ" or the "law of obedience." It's a derivative of a number of laws. Because it's exceptional it's place in the eternal scheme of things will be worked out as God sees fit. I personally don't know what that will entail just that it has to follow what is God, which is both merciful and just, no respecter of persons, and full of love. It also means that the allowance of sealings of one man to multiple women and one woman to multiple men - both exceptional but allowed as God reveals in their time - should be decided upon with equal footing. It's only fair, loving, merciful, and just.

 

Here's the specific quotes I found most interesting. Note the careful interplay between what is definitely doctrine (eternal marriage) and what's exceptional (polygamy) and the fact that they're very carefully worded in terms of using the words practice and principle v doctrine in describing the distinction. The first is not only interesting for the words but who gave it as well (someone who served over an area where polygamy is legal): 

 

Modern prophets teach clearly that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. In the Book of Mormon the prophets teach us to “hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife” (Jacob 2:27).  As part of the “restitution of all things” the Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded to reinstitute the practice of Old Testament polygamy as a religious principle in 1831. The Lord revoked that commandment in 1890. Today Church members honour and respect the sacrifices made by those who lived this commandment in the early days of the Restoration. However, the practice is banned in the Church today, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member. The Church only baptizes couples who live in monogamous and legally recognized marriages. There is also a doctrinal principal of the Lord associated with plural marriage that the Lord employed to test His children relative to obedience and giving heed to the teachings of the prophets and apostles. From the revelations we learn, “Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord” (D&C 56:4).

 

http://www.lds.org/broadcasts/marriage?lang=eng&country=afe

 

No. There are more than 14 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not one of them is a polygamist. The practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church. The general standard of marriage in the Church has always been monogamy, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (see Jacob 2:27). For periods in the Bible polygamy was practiced by the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob, as well as kings David and Solomon. It was again practiced by a minority of Latter-day Saints in the early years of the Church. Polygamy was officially discontinued in 1890 — 122 years ago. Those who practice polygamy today have nothing whatsoever to do with the Church.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C16

 

The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2): “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. … 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.” 

In other words, the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise.  Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/polygamy-latter-day-saints-and-the-practice-of-plural-marriage

The marriage of a husband to two or more living wives. It is lawful for a man to have only one wife, unless the Lord commands otherwise by revelation (Jacob 2:27–30). By revelation, plural marriage was practiced in Old Testament times and in the early days of the restored Church by the direction of the prophet who held the priesthood keys (D&C 132:34–40, 45). It is no longer practiced in the Church (D&C OD—1); today, having more than one wife is incompatible with membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/marriage-marry/plural-marriage?lang=eng  

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 18, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

From the Deseret News:

 

 

President Joseph Fielding Smith:

 

 

A poem written by President Lee

 

 

Elder Oaks at BYU:

 

 

For these men, polygamy in the eternities is doctrine. These men are prophets, seers, and revealators. All after the manifesto.

And if these men had all married as second and third wives women who were already sealed to another men, would it have meant their love was any less meaningful or their desire to spend eternity together any less strong?

[AndyDnom]

has anyone ever liked the LDS church MORE because of polygamy? has it ever gained a convert?

 

why are people reluctant to admit that polygamy is at best bad pR