Ok There Seems To Be A Problem With Polygamy In The Church's Past

[JLHPROF]

Personally, I believe plural marriage in church history will soon be explained away in similar terms to the priesthood ban.

"We don't know why it happened, we're not sure it's doctrinal, we've moved passed it, it belongs to the history books, we are moving forward, we are monogamists and always will be......"

 

Actually, considering the way the world is going on accepting alternate marriages combined with the Church being more open with its historical scholarship, I think you will find more embracing of our polygamous past.

 

The only reason to explain it away is that society doesn't approve of it.  Society is starting to approve of it so explaining it away becomes unnecessary.

If polygamous marriage ever becomes actually legal (and considering the SSM movement it might), then there would be absolutely no reason for the Church to explain it away.

And as for the Church ALWAYS being monogamists - well, that's going to be tricky at the Council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman when all the prophets with their plural wives are meeting.  When the Heavenly Church and the Earthly Church are combined in the winding up the Church will be full of polygamists again, so we'd better get used to it.

[ERayR]

Maybe that's just me.

 

Probably it is.

[saemo]

Probably it is.

Which is one good reason to not be a Mormon.

[USU78]

Polygyny was a trial for my great-grandparents and great-great grandparents who practiced it.  That trial, in my opinion, was always supposed to be of limited duration, especially in light of Jacob’s High-Priestly address at the Temple.  D&C 132:28-40 makes clear the nature of the Abrahamic Test, as discussed by Hudson:  If we are to enjoy the blessings of Abraham, we should expect to be tested as Abraham was tested.  How was he tested?

 

1. In risking his life in order to be faithful to his covenant to worship YHWH only (the incident on the lion couch);
2. In trusting that G-d’s word that he should obfuscate about his marriage to Sarah to Pharaoh and Abimelech, rapists and murderers both, and G-d would affect temporal salvation for both Abraham and Sarah;
3. In trusting that G-d would provide in Abraham’s eschewing his right to the better real estate down by the Dead Sea plain (a garden spot at the time that selfish Lot took after the herdsmen dispute) and embracing the Judean highlands, as well as eschewing his share of booty from the war to rescue the King of Sodom;
4. In trusting G-d’s promise of numerous posterity through Sarah despite Sarah’s barrenness [a common OT theme, BTW];
5. In trusting Sarah’s invocation of her marriage contract rights in submitting her slave as proxy for herself in producing the promised posterity, which G-d, according to the language sited in section 132, approved of . . . as proven [from an OT perspective] by G-d’s prospering of the nation that came through Ishmael;
6. In trusting G-d’s promise of numerous posterity through post-menopausal Sarah, the demand of human sacrifice of the only reasonably available heir, Isaac, notwithstanding.

 

Each of those 6 tests broke Abraham’s heart . . . the Hagar incident as much as the Binding of Isaac incident . . . yet he is referred to as G-d’s friend.

 

Those who would follow Abraham need to be made of sterner stuff than those who balk at so feeble a demanded “sacrifice” as a cannery assignment or life without Darjeeling.

 

If we are to be tested as he was tested, we need to have our hearts open enough to be broken by inexplicable and perhaps irrational things.  If mortal polygyny is demanded, we keep our hearts open, as my **** grandfather’s parents did, and trust that G-d will make things okay:  and He did, as she who was my great-grandmother conceived a child after years of frustration and tears almost immediately after making the commitment to start looking for a sister wife.

 

Do I think this test will be demanded of us in life?  No.  That popular cultural omnigamy foisted on us by a mindless knee-jerk judiciary make obvious that we as Saints will not embrace such a thing:  Jacob’s High-Priestly address at the Temple also makes that clear.  Only when G-d commands and only for His purposes can and should polygyny occur.

 

Do I think there will be polygyny in the Celestial Kingdom?  Probably not.  To assume there will be more women than men there necessitating such a thing is sexist and, frankly, a condemnation of G-d’s foresight.  Once again, He will make it right as He did for my great grandparents.

[USU78]

The only problem I see with the tarring account, is that Eli Johnson was named as a brother, whereas he was an uncle. Still, an upset relative. Still, I don't see how there is any religious persecution at the root of the incident.

 

You must have a different standard for marriage than I do. I'm strictly monogamous, meaning, if my husband brought home ONE other woman, I'd certainly view that as unfaithful. I would view the known 33 accounts of marital wandering as a pretty good indication that the husband is ever looking, ever unfaithful, and I'd be wondering how many more there were.

 

Maybe that's just me.

 

14 years from 1827 to 1841 with but one alleged incident.

 

Account for this discrepancy and its stark contrast with the last 3 years of JSJr's life, and maybe you'll be on the road to getting it.  You plainly don't.

[saemo]

14 years from 1827 to 1841 with but one alleged incident.

Account for this discrepancy and its stark contrast with the last 3 years of JSJr's life, and maybe you'll be on the road to getting it. You plainly don't.

One? You and I must be reading different histories. The last three years of his life appear to me as a time where he went even more astray, as though, he couldn't accumulate enough women. Edited September 12, 2014 by saemo

[ERayR]

Which is one good reason to not be a Mormon.

 

For you, probably true but if you ever change your mind.

[ERayR]

One? You and I must be reading different histories.

 

Possible there are several, all biased to the tellers POV.

[saemo]

For you, probably true but if you ever change your mind.

The day I come to view Smith's extramarital relationships as virtuous is the day I'll be in hell. So, no thanks.

[USU78]

Possible there are several, all biased to the tellers POV.

 

Yup.

 

Dirty minds, and all that . . .

[ERayR]

The day I come to view Smith's extramarital relationships as virtuous is the day I'll be in hell. So, no thanks.

 

That may be too.

[saemo]

Possible there are several, all biased to the tellers POV.

Ummm, ok, that is rather silly but whatever it takes I guess to ignore what really went on. You and Emma are in the same company. I guess there really are people who think Joseph Smith could do no evil.

[JLHPROF]

The day I come to view Smith's extramarital relationships as virtuous is the day I'll be in hell. So, no thanks.

 

Joseph Smith had NO extramarital relationships.  Every woman he was with he was married to.

 

 

Ummm, ok, that is rather silly but whatever it takes I guess to ignore what really went on. You and Emma are in the same company. I guess there really are people who think Joseph Smith could do no evil.

 

That would be me.

Edited September 12, 2014 by JLHPROF

[saemo]

Yup.

 

Dirty minds, and all that . . .

And some people are just gullible, and all that....

[saemo]

Joseph Smith had NO extramarital relationships. Every woman he was with he was married to.

Like I said, gullible and all that....

That would be me.

There is just one man who is free from sin, and it isn't Joseph Smith. Edited September 12, 2014 by saemo

[ERayR]

 I guess there really are people who think Joseph Smith could do no evil.

 

Where did I write that?  Your clairvoyant powers seem to be dormant today.

[ERayR]

There is just one man who is free from sin, and it isn't Joseph Smith.

 

That is not accurate as there are/will be many as all can be washed free of sin through the atonement of Christ

[Calm]

The only problem I see with the tarring account, is that Eli Johnson was named as a brother, whereas he was an uncle.

 

Except that the leader of the incident claimed something else for the cause of it.  From my previous quote:

 

And the leader of the mob, Simonds Ryder [you know, Mr. You-can't-spell-my-name-right], later said that the attack occurred because members of the mob had found some documents that led them to believe “the horrid fact that a plot was laid to take their property from them and place it under the control of Smith”

 

 

You claimed that Joseph Smith was always on the lookout, not that he was just unfaithful according to your standards.

 

As USU pointed out, there were 14 years with only one likely relationship prior to the last three years of his life according to reliable scholarship.  If you want to rely on dubious scholarship you can find some after Alger so that still leaves the first decade of his marriage with no evidence that he was unfaithful to Emma.

 

 Emma may well have viewed him as unfaithful in the latter part of their marriage and I don't have an issue with those who do, but it hardly supports your claim that he was always looking for another woman to have a relationship.  Apply that to the last three years of his life perhaps, but it is hardly accurate for the majority of his married life.

Edited September 12, 2014 by calmoriah

[Alan]

Actually, considering the way the world is going on accepting alternate marriages combined with the Church being more open with its historical scholarship, I think you will find more embracing of our polygamous past.

 

The only reason to explain it away is that society doesn't approve of it.  Society is starting to approve of it so explaining it away becomes unnecessary.

If polygamous marriage ever becomes actually legal (and considering the SSM movement it might), then there would be absolutely no reason for the Church to explain it away.

And as for the Church ALWAYS being monogamists - well, that's going to be tricky at the Council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman when all the prophets with their plural wives are meeting.  When the Heavenly Church and the Earthly Church are combined in the winding up the Church will be full of polygamists again, so we'd better get used to it.

 

I would suggest this is pure speculation.

[JLHPROF]

I would suggest this is pure speculation.

 

Which part?  The part about the Church allowing it?  Sure, that's speculation.

The part where all the deceased polygamists sealed to their multiple wives in eternal marriage will rejoin with the earthly church and walk among us?  Absolutely no speculation.

 

When I meet Abraham I fully expect to see Sarah, Hagar and Keturah with him.  When I meet Joseph Smith I fully expect to see Emma, Eliza, Fanny and many others with him.  When I meet Old Father Israel I hope to meet more than just my ancestor Rachel, but Leah, Zilpah, and Bilhah too.  I expect to meet Joseph Fielding Smith and his 3 wives.  I expect to meet Pres. Hunter and his 2 wives.

And frankly, I expect to see the Savior standing with his "train" including Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene.

 

Seriously, even if it's not reintroduced in this life, Polygamy is going to be a big part of Celestial society, or else eternal marriage counts for nothing.  And that's NOT speculation.

[USU78]

Which part?  The part about the Church allowing it?  Sure, that's speculation.

The part where all the deceased polygamists sealed to their multiple wives in eternal marriage will rejoin with the earthly church and walk among us?  Absolutely no speculation.

 

When I meet Abraham I fully expect to see Sarah, Hagar and Keturah with him.  When I meet Joseph Smith I fully expect to see Emma, Eliza, Fanny and many others with him.  When I meet Old Father Israel I hope to meet more than just my ancestor Rachel, but Leah, Zilpah, and Bilhah too.  I expect to meet Joseph Fielding Smith and his 3 wives.  I expect to meet Pres. Hunter and his 2 wives.

And frankly, I expect to see the Savior standing with his "train" including Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene.

 

Seriously, even if it's not reintroduced in this life, Polygamy is going to be a big part of Celestial society, or else eternal marriage counts for nothing.  And that's NOT speculation.

 

Well . . . I'm as familiar with the XIXth Century war rhetoric as most, but I'm also a reader of primary sources, and I would disagree that "that's NOT speculation."

 

If, as I believe, polygyny is an Abrahamic test, then why would G-d impose it upon us in that place where all tears are dried and all wounds bound up?

 

I speculate that polygyny, IF it exists in the eternities, will be a sometimes and not a general thing, and that G-d will make it work out for all of us to our greatest happiness and advantage.

 

Living a test as a forever thing doesn't sound like much fun to me.

[JLHPROF]

Well . . . I'm as familiar with the XIXth Century war rhetoric as most, but I'm also a reader of primary sources, and I would disagree that "that's NOT speculation."

 

If, as I believe, polygyny is an Abrahamic test, then why would G-d impose it upon us in that place where all tears are dried and all wounds bound up?

 

I speculate that polygyny, IF it exists in the eternities, will be a sometimes and not a general thing, and that G-d will make it work out for all of us to our greatest happiness and advantage.

 

Living a test as a forever thing doesn't sound like much fun to me.

Seems like overthinking instead of primary source.

 

Doctrine A - Mormons believe in marriage for eternity and are sealed into such as eternal families.

Doctrine B - God commanded/allowed some to enter into eternal plural marriage sealings throughout the earth's history.

 

Given A & B how can "C - There will be polygamist families in the eternities"  be untrue?  If they were married for eternity and marriage is indeed eternal then they will be married in the Celestial Kingdom.  Logic begs any other interpretation.

 

And as for it being a sometimes thing, sure, maybe.  But the prophets I mentioned ARE the sometimes.  If we expect to associate with them we will be associating with polygamists on a daily basis.

Edited September 12, 2014 by JLHPROF

[VideoGameJunkie]

But why do the prophets get to practice it and not the common folk? Because only the prophets could handle it?

[JLHPROF]

But why do the prophets get to practice it and not the common folk? Because only the prophets could handle it?

 

Now THAT is a can of worms best left closed.  But there were plenty of common folk that practiced it in every dispensation.

[Alan]

Which part?  The part about the Church allowing it?  Sure, that's speculation.

The part where all the deceased polygamists sealed to their multiple wives in eternal marriage will rejoin with the earthly church and walk among us?  Absolutely no speculation.

 

When I meet Abraham I fully expect to see Sarah, Hagar and Keturah with him.  When I meet Joseph Smith I fully expect to see Emma, Eliza, Fanny and many others with him.  When I meet Old Father Israel I hope to meet more than just my ancestor Rachel, but Leah, Zilpah, and Bilhah too.  I expect to meet Joseph Fielding Smith and his 3 wives.  I expect to meet Pres. Hunter and his 2 wives.

And frankly, I expect to see the Savior standing with his "train" including Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene.

 

Seriously, even if it's not reintroduced in this life, Polygamy is going to be a big part of Celestial society, or else eternal marriage counts for nothing.  And that's NOT speculation.

 

It certainly is speculation. Show us in the scriptures where the wives of the prophets will be meeting at Adam-Ondi-Ahman. As I understand it, it is ostensibly a priesthood meeting. I may be wrong.... but you're certainly speculating.

You're also, of course, speculating that you're going to be there!