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

[teddyaware]

Currenty, the church treats its' polygamous past as the red-headed stepchild.

 

I suspect once polygamy is legalized and stigmas softened, that we will begin to see lessons in our manuals praising the faithful trials endured by our forefathers and mothers that lived the commandment.

You suspect incorrectly. The unsanctioned perversions and abominations of so-called "marriage" that will proliferate as we get closer and closer to the Second Coming will be nothing the General Authorities will ever want hitch to the fortunes of the Church. When the spiritually dead of this fallen world put to mockery that which is holy and can only be understood and discerned by the power of the Spirit, the Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob's description will be the only words that will apply to the burgeoning tide of moral depravity:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms... (Jacob 2)

Edited September 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

You suspect incorrectly. The unsanctioned perversions and abominations of so-called "marriage" that will proliferate as we get closer and closer to the Second Coming will be nothing the General Authorities will ever want hitch to the Church. When the spiritually dead of this fallen world put to mockery that which is holy and can only be understood and discerned by the power of the Spirit, the Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob's description will be the only words that will apply to the burgeoning tide of moral depravity:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms... (Jacob 2)

 

While I agree with you for the most part, I'd like to have you differentiate between polygamy as "perversion and abomination" and polygamy as lived by men of God.  Jacob 2 differentiates between righteous and unrighteous polygamy, but the same standard can easily be applied to monogamy.

 

I understand the necessity of authority for the marriages, but we don't consider monogamous marriage outside the priesthood as perversion and within as moral.  Why then would we consider polygamous marriage outside the priesthood as perversion and within as moral?  Polygamy isn't immoral so why then group it with perversions and abominations?

 

Either polygamous marriage is morally acceptable or it isn't. (My opinion - it is)

Either monogamous marriage is morally acceptable or is isn't. (My opinion - it is)

Either SSM is morally acceptable or it isn't.  (My opinion - it isn't)

Edited September 1, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Alan]

MormonFree Thinker,

A lot of very poor work is passed off as being worthy because it is produced by so-called "scholars".

[Coreyb]

You suspect incorrectly. The unsanctioned perversions and abominations of so-called "marriage" that will proliferate as we get closer and closer to the Second Coming will be nothing the General Authorities will ever want hitch to the Church. When the spiritually dead of this fallen world put to mockery that which is holy and can only be understood and discerned by the power of the Spirit, the Book of Mormon Prophet Jacob's description will be the only words that will apply to the burgeoning tide of moral depravity:23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms... (Jacob 2)

Since we can disregard what latter day prophets have said as "just their opinion" why is Jacob given a pass. Maybe that was just his opinion

[teddyaware]

While I agree with you for the most part, I'd like to have you differentiate between polygamy as "perversion and abomination" and polygamy as lived by men of God.  Jacob 2 differentiates between righteous and unrighteous polygamy, but the same standard can easily be applied to monogamy.

 

I understand the necessity of authority for the marriages, but we don't consider monogamous marriage outside the priesthood as perversion and within as moral.  Why then would we consider polygamous marriage outside the priesthood as perversion and within as moral?  Polygamy isn't immoral so why then group it with perversions and abominations?

 

Either polygamous marriage is morally acceptable or it isn't. (My opinion - it is)

Either monogamous marriage is morally acceptable or is isn't. (My opinion - it is)

Either SSM is morally acceptable or it isn't.  (My opinion - it isn't)

As one who has a testimony of the Restored Church, my focus is not on men's opinions. I'm using the Lord's own word for my guide. The leaders of today's Church have let in be known to all the world on a great many occasions that legal monogamous marriage is the Lord's commanded norm for both members and nonmembers alike. If there are some current polygamists who are ignorant of God's current will, but practice plural marriage based on longstanding tradition, God will surely apply a different standard of justice and mercy to them. Meanwhile those who knowingly grieve the light of Christ that dwells within their own consciences, and defy that inner-light by living lives of perversion, will be judged more harshly. Your question really all boils down to degrees of accountability for those involved in violating the Lord's will. Those who are more innocent and naïve are better off than those who knowingly rejoice in wickedness.

Edited September 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Since we can disregard what latter day prophets have said as "just their opinion" why is Jacob given a pass. Maybe that was just his opinion

Where in my post did I speak of opinions? I must be missing something. It's likely you have a strain of thought in your mind that's very clear to you, but because with a paucity of words you only hinted at what was in your mind, you've left me in the dark.

P.S. The emoticon didn't help.

[Coreyb]

Where in my post did I speak of opinions? I must be missing something. It's likely you have a strain of thought in your mind that's very clear to you, but because with a paucity of words you only hinted at what was in your mind, you've left me in the dark.

P.S. The emoticon didn't help.

Sorry, I am not speaking to your post directly, as much as I am wondering why people often use Jacobs words in the book of mormon to be more reliable than say Brighams words, or others

[mormonnewb]

Had you actually been a lifelong Mormon who attended church meetings and sunday school, you would know that our faith is to be put only in God and in his son Jesus Christ.  Where did you obtain the ridiculous notion that our faith is in fallible human church leaders?  I'll wager that a serious poll of Mormons would show that hardly any of them would miss a question on this.

  

As one who has a testimony of the Restored Church, my focus is not on men's opinions. I'm using the Lord's own word for my guide. The leaders of today's Church have let in be known to all the world on a great many occasions that legal monogamous marriage is the Lord's commanded norm for both members and nonmembers alike.

Check and mate, Brother Smith! In AT LEAST one member's mind, there is no difference between the pronouncements of the Brethren and the "Lord's own word." Is your contention that teddyaware is some rogue "new order" Mormon who believes that the words of the prophets are just those of "fallible men"? In my view, this is "old order" Mormonism at its best.

[teddyaware]

Check and mate, Brother Smith! In AT LEAST one member's mind, there is no difference between the pronouncements of the Brethren and the "Lord's own word." Is your contention that teddyaware is some rogue "new order" Mormon who believes that the words of the prophets are just those of "fallible men"? In my view, this is "old order" Mormonism at its best.

Of all the members of the Church I've ever come to know -- whether by acquaintance , by broadcast, by written word, or by participation on a discussion board -- you are simultaneously the most intelligent and yet most clueless Latter-day Saint who's ever crossed my path. I predict that unless you buckle down and start intensively studying the scriptures by real faith, the day is going to come when you will be mortified beyond measure when it finally dawns upon you just how willfully obtuse you've been.

Every member of the Church has been given the power, authority, and divinely supplied means (within the bounds of their own legitimate stewardships) to become a prophet or prophetess in his or her own right. But rather than earnestly engaging in the process of learning how to obtain the answers to your questions by going directly to God Himself, as Moroni's challenge directs each of us to do, you battle like an intellectual banshee on this board, causing much unnecessary ill will and strife in the process.

By learning to go to the Source for my answers, I've come to know beyond doubt that the men who lead the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are genuine Prophets, Seers and Revelators chosen by God to lead and guide the saints in our day. While you seem to set an impossibly high bar of divine perfection for these 15 men before you'll be persuaded to follow them without reservation, I sup at the table of their inspired leadership and receive precious counsel and resultant inner peace at their hand.

That's right, I approach God in humble reverence for answers and at times He answers me directly. But in addition to one-on-one personal revelation, He's always sure to counsel me to be sure to heed and honor these fifteen men as His living oracles; making it clear to me that by earnestly striving in faith to heed the counsel of these ordinary and yet most extraordinary of men, I will ultimately gain exaltation with my family in celestial glory.

So who am I following, God or the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve? Why I'm following God, of course. How? Because His counsel to me is that in addition to listening to and obeying His direct counsel, I must also continue to follow and apply His further heavenly counsel that He disseminates to the world through of His earthly representatives, and that by being sure to always follow this course of action, I will always continue to follow Him.

I hope the day will soon come when you put the sword down and seek the earnestly path of the Saviour's peace. I and many others can use all the help we can get as we travel the strait and narrow path that lead to eternal life; and a fine mind such as yours, when enlightened by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost, will prove to be an instrument of inestimable value to both God and man. All of us have the choice placed before us to be a hero or a goat. May we all chose to be heroes, even if it so be that we are only heroes to our own children.

P.S. Don't expect me to respond to you any time soon because I am on "limited" status on this board, and have only one more post I can make before late tonight. All the best to you...

 

We remind you that you are on limited because of your refusal to stop preaching and reproving others.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Maybe we accept more wives in the spirit world and during the millennium if we are so worthy. Kind of like a 72 virgins thing, except LDS style for exaltation.

[JLHPROF]

The leaders of today's Church have let in be known to all the world on a great many occasions that legal monogamous marriage is the Lord's commanded norm for both members and nonmembers alike.

 

Except that this is simply not in evidence.  Monogamy was NOT the Lord's commanded norm at any point in history except for the following:

 

1. Jacob 2 where men were living it wickedly and it had to be withdrawn.

2. During the great apostasy when the Roman pagan tradition merged with the early Christian Church, which was not by God's command.

3. 1890 and OD1 (or to be more precise 1904 onward and the 2nd Manifesto) when it was withdrawn for political reasons.

 

In other words, it has only been the norm for a tiny fraction of earths history, and there are ONLY two recorded times when God directly outlawed it.

From Adam till Christ it was a perfectly acceptable form of marriage, even in the eyes of God.  From Christ to Joseph Smith when the gospel was not on the earth it became a forbidden form of marriage.

That should tell us something about what happened in 1890.

[Calm]

Maybe we accept more wives in the spirit world and during the millennium if we are so worthy. Kind of like a 72 virgins thing, except LDS style for exaltation.

72virgins are a reward and not a responsibility where they have to treat the women as equals, as their forever companion as opposed to playmate, if I understand correctly.

If one assumes one is rewarded with wives for good behaviour, then it would seem they see women on par with great cars and big houses, possessions that mark how successful one is.

Somehow I doubt that is the essence of a celestial marriage.

[MormonFreeThinker]

MormonFree Thinker,

A lot of very poor work is passed off as being worthy because it is produced by so-called "scholars".

 

True, but all historians believe that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy. 

[teddyaware]

Except that this is simply not in evidence.  Monogamy was NOT the Lord's commanded norm at any point in history except for the following:

 

1. Jacob 2 where men were living it wickedly and it had to be withdrawn.

2. During the great apostasy when the Roman pagan tradition merged with the early Christian Church, which was not by God's command.

3. 1890 and OD1 (or to be more precise 1904 onward and the 2nd Manifesto) when it was withdrawn for political reasons.

 

In other words, it has only been the norm for a tiny fraction of earths history, and there are ONLY two recorded times when God directly outlawed it.

From Adam till Christ it was a perfectly acceptable form of marriage, even in the eyes of God.  From Christ to Joseph Smith when the gospel was not on the earth it became a forbidden form of marriage.

That should tell us something about what happened in 1890.

And so I'm going to use my last post and will not be able to respond any further until tomorrow.

My response to you was primarily geared toward polygamy as practiced by non-members of the Lord's Kingdom, in any and all Gospel dispensations (in your initial response I thought you were suggesting that non-member polygamous marriages are normative and acceptable in the eyes of God). With regard to marriage, the original divine commandment was for a single man and a single woman to be bound in holy matrimony:

22 And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, made I a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife  (not wives); and they shall be one flesh. (Moses 3)

 

Like it or not, in the very beginning this was the divinely ordained pattern for marriage. 

 Now while God may wink at polygamous marital practices among peoples who don't know any better, nevertheless it is the Lord Himself, both in Jacob 2 and D&C 132, who forbids the practice of plural marriage unless He bestows upon certain men the heavenly priesthood power that makes such marriages legitimate on earth and binding in heaven. By His own word the Lord declares that if polygamy is ever to be practiced in righteousness, He will empower and command His duly authorized earthly priesthood representatives to carry out the program. Not just any Tom, **** or Harry can practice plural marriage with divine approval, for the authority to do so must be made manifest by revelation and followed by the conferral of the proper priesthood sealing authority (initially) by angelic ministration. 

27 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;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 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. (Jacob 2)

 

Doctrine and Covenants 132 settles the question as to whether or not  divine approval and the bestowal of proper priesthood keys of authority are necessary before polygamy can be practiced in righteousness. In fact, the whole rationale for polygamy is predicated only upon the principles of the Holy Priesthood and the Patriarchal Order as it will exist in eternity. As presented in section 132, divinely sanctioned plural marriage is a most sacred and profoundly sobering principle of practice:

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. (D&C 138)

 

Scary stuff; nothing mundane or casual about it...

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. (D&C 138)

Nothing here that a your average domineering African tribal chief or Arab sheik would be able to relate to or understand.

 

At best, God can only wink at earthly plural marriages practiced by those ignorant of His divine mandates. Legitimate and divinely authorized plural marriages are a most holy institution and can only be practiced as normative at the command of God. As for the plural marriages that are likely going to be practiced in the USA after the definition of marriage has been totally undermined (it 's on this is issue that our conversation was initiated), its hard for me to believe or imagine that any of these so-called plural marriages will be anything but among the spiritually lethal kinds of perversions warned about in the "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

"... we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

Edited September 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[Nofear]

If one assumes one is rewarded with wives for good behaviour, then it would seem they see women on par with great cars and big houses, possessions that mark how successful one is.

Somehow I doubt that is the essence of a celestial marriage.

A member of our ward spoke at church this Sunday. Early in the talk when he stated that he must have been a pretty good missionary, just look at how he was rewarded with an awesome looking wife ... my wife stopped listening. Ultimately it was a pretty shallow talk.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Nofear

[mormonnewb]

Of all the members of the Church I've ever come to know -- whether by acquaintance , by broadcast, by written word, or by participation on a discussion board -- you are simultaneously the most intelligent and yet most clueless Latter-day Saint who's ever crossed my path. I predict that unless you buckle down and start intensively studying the scriptures by real faith, the day is going to come when you will be mortified beyond measure when it finally dawns upon you just how willfully obtuse you've been.

 

You sweet-talker, you!

 

I think you had some constructive criticism to impart in your post, but I was too "willfully obtuse" to work my way past the "most intelligent" part of your post.  Given my penchant for light-mindedness (and general sarcasm), I don't get a lot of compliments, so I take them however they come.

 

Most intelligently yours,

[JLHPROF]

And so I'm going to use my last post and will not be able to respond any further until tomorrow.

My response to you was primarily geared toward polygamy as practiced by non-members of the Lord's Kingdom, in any and all Gospel dispensations (in your initial response I thought you were suggesting that non-member polygamous marriages are normative and acceptable in the eyes of God). With regard to marriage, the original divine commandment was for a single man and a single woman to be bound in holy matrimony:

22 And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, made I a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife  (not wives); and they shall be one flesh. (Moses 3)

 

Like it or not, in the very beginning this was the divinely ordained pattern for marriage.

 

Well, I AM sorry you can't respond today and I hope you don't consider this me claiming the last word unfairly.  But to respond to your points:

First, the scriptural account of Adam - Brigham Young and Jewish tradition both clearly teach that Eve was just one of Adam's many wives, so the "from the beginning argument" doesn't hold water in either Mormonism or Judeochristian.  Only the Genesis "fairytale" as Brigham termed it limits the first marriage to one wife.  Adam and Eve were NOT monogamous, at least not in Mormonism.

 

 

 Now while God may wink at polygamous marital practices among peoples who don't know any better, nevertheless it is the Lord Himself, both in Jacob 2 and D&C 132, who forbids the practice of plural marriage unless He bestows upon certain men the heavenly priesthood power that makes such marriages legitimate on earth and binding in heaven. By His own word the Lord declares that if polygamy is ever to be practiced in righteousness, He will empower and command His duly authorized earthly priesthood representatives to carry out the program. Not just any Tom, **** or Harry can practice plural marriage with divine approval, for the authority to do so must be made manifest by revelation and followed by the conferral of the proper priesthood sealing authority (initially) by angelic ministration. 

27 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;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 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. (Jacob 2)

 

 

And yet you gloss over my key point - that the only time that God HASN'T authorized plural marriage is when we are in a state of apostasy or too wicked or too worldly focused.  The Jacob example is true, and clearly refers to a wicked society practicing it.  God has NEVER forbidden a righetous people from practicing plural marriage.  He banned it in the days of Jacob because they were living it sinfully.  If we are righteous, God authorizes it.  If we are wicked, God withdraws it.  THAT is the lesson of Jacob.

 

 

 Doctrine and Covenants 132 settles the question as to whether or not  divine approval and the bestowal of proper priesthood keys of authority are necessary before polygamy can be practiced in righteousness. In fact, the whole rationale for polygamy is predicated only upon the principles of the Holy Priesthood and the Patriarchal Order as it will exist in eternity. As presented in section 132, divinely sanctioned plural marriage is a most sacred and profoundly sobering principle of practice:

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. (D&C 138)

 

Scary stuff; nothing mundane or casual about it...

6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead. (D&C 138)

Nothing here that a your average domineering African tribal chief or Arab sheik would be able to relate to or understand.

 

This once again correctly states the necessity of having correct priesthood authority on the earth to perform plural marriages.  When Adam held the keys on earth, plural marriage was allowed.  When Abraham held the keys on earth, plural marriage was allowed.  When Moses held the keys on earth, plural marriage was allowed.  When Christ held the keys on earth, plural marriage was allowed.  When Joseph Smith restored and held the keys on earth plural marriage was allowed.

When was plural marriage banned by God?  When the people were wicked - Jacob 2 or when the gospel wasn't on earth - the Apostasy.  The simple historical truth is that God's approval and authority for polygamy has ALWAYS gone hand in hand with the gospel. 

Polygamy is the gospel norm coming from revelation and the examples of the prophets.  Monogamy is the apostate norm, coming from apostasy, unworthiness or paganism.  That is what scripture and history shows.  Clearly.

 

 

 At best, God can only wink at earthly plural marriages practiced by those ignorant of His divine mandates. Legitimate and divinely authorized plural marriages are a most holy institution and can only be practiced as normative at the command of God. As for the plural marriages that are likely going to be practiced in the USA after the definition of marriage has been totally undermined (it 's on this is issue that our conversation was initiated), its hard for me to believe or imagine that any of these so-called plural marriages will be anything but among the spiritually lethal kinds of perversions warned about in the "The Family: A Proclamation to the World."

"... we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

 

I once again object to the notion that polygamy can be grouped with the abominations, perversions or disintegrations of marriage we have been warned against.  I DO believe it requires correct authority, but the system itself is NOT inherently sinful.

[zionslight]

Ok, this is probably going to start a heated discussion, which I truly do not want to necessarily open up as there are different thoughts on this, but I do want to bring up some facts that will not answer everything but will give more depth to how God felt in Jacob 2 about His daughter's pain as the men were starting to do what they had in old.

 

I appreciated reading some of the earlier posts, but I do have to say I differ that God actually did preach monogamy from the beginning, both in Adam and Eve, and with Noah and his wives.  This will open up a "can of worms" with D&C 132, and the former D&C 101, which prohibited polygamy and called it a crime as does Jacob.

 

This will take some time and discussion, but it brings in a whole new light.  I am coming from the position that my father is "sealed" to two women, my mother who died and another woman who is married again after he died at the age of 44.  I do not have an axe to grind, but I have studied so intensely this subject and found too many inconsistencies that it started me on a path that has been incredibly enlightening.  We as LDS people sometimes do not read the scriptures correctly, the Lord says we have the lesser portion, that we will not get the greater, and even then we will "reject the fullness" and it will be turned back to the Lamanites.

 

The truth is Joseph Smith actually was trying to eradicate polygamy as was Hyrum right before they died.  We must recognize that the church recently posted an article that stated that they may have made a mistake with the blacks and the priesthood.  We can never think that we are not prone to mistakes, as was Joseph - the bank problem etc.

 

I will just say that while Joseph was alive they had the Doctrine of Marriage which was part of the church doctrine and was signed by the First Presidency and the women that stated that it was only legal and lawful for a man to have one wife, and one husband period and since they were accused of the "crime" of polygamy, they were making it clear.

 

The RLDS church does have the original records that were kept there by the ones that stayed; our church only recently had permission to print on LDS.org these Times and Seasons articles and original documentation with the understanding that they could not change or alter anything.

 

Jacob was commanded to speak to the Nephites about two things, the abomination of pride and the money, and the crime and whoredom that was starting of polygamy.  He does not mince words, we read it incorrectly sometimes by thinking that the Lord was saying that "if He wanted to raise up a righteous branch...then He would start polygamy".  It actually reads very different.

 

Please bear with me, this is a HUGE subject that can be broken down. The Lord always lets His people wander if we wander and is constantly correcting His Church, as did Jacob.

 

I hear people say that it says in the scriptures "moderation in all things", or that it states that we are never to abstain from meats, by incorrectly interpreting and stating scripture.  The "forbid to abstain" (I am only using this for an example) is actually saying what it is saying.  It is a double negative.  Joseph Smith went to the Lord and asked in Section 49 about the Quakers who were abstaining from meat, and abstaining from marriage.  The Lord answered in the precursor for the Word of Wisdom, and the Law of Eternal Marriage which states that to forbid to marry is not of God, and to "forbid to abstain" also is not.  Meaning, they could not forbid the QUAKERS to abstain from meat, reading exactly the opposite of what we ignorantly quote at times.

 

It is before Section 89 where the Lord says "and it is pleasing unto me none at all...EXCEPT in times of famine and winter".  The saints took that seriously and valued the life of the animal and did not drive through McDonalds like we do as though meat and hamburgers are the vegetables and grain that are to be our staff.

 

Does this make sense?  So the marriage was given that a man was to have ONE wife, and this that the earth would get to its measure of creation and be filled with man.

 

It is a misnomer that Joseph "had" to restore this, it is incorrect but has remained in our manuals.  President Hinckley addressed that we do not practice polygamy with Larry King.

 

It is also an untruth that they had to establish polygamy for there to be more of a righteous branch.  This is also what the Lord was saying in Jacob 2.  They have done all the DNA studies finding that 100% of all those tested outside of Emma simply were not related to Joseph Smith from any wife.

 

This will take some time, and I am happy to address this, I know that there will be some intense responses, and with all sincerity an share what I know, and what others have found out as well.  It is a real part of our history, and has hurt and confused many people.

 

The New and Everlasting Covenant was the baptism, not plural marriage that some say that it is.  The Lord cares so deeply about the feelings of His daughters and when you really get into the history it will completely take you by surprise how the men that disobeyed Joseph on this aspect also called their prophet back and "like a lamb to the slaughter" he was martyred, although God had a different idea.  It was the brethren that would not listen to Joseph, and the church went through a real cleanse and hardship during these years before polygamy was eradicated.

 

I hope I am not offending anyone.

[JLHPROF]

The truth is Joseph Smith actually was trying to eradicate polygamy as was Hyrum right before they died. 

 

Oh, you're hardly the first person on the board to take this opinion/approach.  The problem is that the majority of historians and the majority of members who've studied our polygamous history (myself among them) find it to be a position with absolultely no merit.

But you will have company here.  There are those on the board that agree.  I think it's nonsense.

 

As to the conclusions drawn in the rest of your post - you may see connections in the quotes you use, but the people you are quoting wouldn't agree with them.  You say the New and Everlasting covenant was Baptism.  Numerous prophets have said otherwise.  You say Joseph didn't "have" to restore this.  Joseph and his contemporaries say otherwise.

 

You are entitled to your own conclusions, but you are taking other peoples statements and giving them meaning that the person speaking didn't.

Edited September 1, 2014 by JLHPROF

[zionslight]

I did not read anything that someone else posted on this, but if there are those that want to know, I can certainly hold my own, only because like other subjects of the gospel I studied for years and years, before coming to any conclusion, or even knowing any facts.

 

I was my own attorney for two years in a case that I learned the difference between assumption, conjecture, presuming, quoting the same thing over and over, without quoting the original source, which is hearsay.  I am not saying I wanted to be an attorney but I did learn about truth, and facts, evidence, and judgment by witnesses.

 

Without getting into that, if anyone is interested I am happy to share what I have learned, and what some of the actual facts according to the original sources are.

 

Like I said, it will take much discussion to cover this, and again I do not intend to start or engage in contention, but I can certainly answer some of this.  If anyone is interested I will expound.  We have had mistakes in our past, and we are making mistakes now... our generation, that if we can read the scriptures correctly it will help us.

 

We simply as a whole do not read and study ourselves, and the Lord allows us to do this.  Let me give some examples:

 

I can not tell you how many times I have heard "And we all know that according to our scripture 'moderation in all things'"  I would never want to embarrass them, but this is not in our scripture.  It was a quote from a General Authority who is only a man.  I like this, but there are some things that there is no moderation in. This is more of a general statement, and we get the picture.  Joseph Smith was very extreme, as was Christ in almost all things, but Christ was not a fanatic, neither was Joseph Smith.  It was all based on truth.

 

I can break this down, some an hold onto whatever opinion we want, but Joseph Smith clearly fought against polygamy before he died and stated, as I did in my case, over and over that he was innocent.  Records have been altered, because at the time there was much confusion and a lot of hardship with the church because they (we) were placed under condemnation, read D& 84, which still rests with us.  They did not finish the Nauvoo temple in time, and found other things to do, and they killed their prophet by not listening to him.

 

I will just throw out a few things.  I am happy to debate and speak about, but truly I do not want to offend or get on the defensive.  I can show some undeniable facts though that do change some things.

 

First of all, D&C 101 was replaced by D&C 132, which was put in 8 years after Joseph died, and was a compilation of several people's words.  You can see and hear the difference when Brigham Young was speaking, as he did not get along with Emma, this was a well known fact, and again Brigham Young was a man who spoke often of his mistakes.  Joseph did not need to, for the Lord covers it in our scriptures.

 

Isaac had only one wife, and he corrected what his father Abraham had done by listening to his wife.  The Lord did not command Abraham to take another wife, this was also not Joseph's words in D&C 132.  Sariah did not have enough faith or knowledge.  She cries out that her wrong be upon him.  The Lord makes this clear later when Abraham is lamenting that he has to send Ishmael off and the Lord says that his wife is right, and that the covenant is through Isaac, not just Abraham.

 

Isaac prayed in faith to open up his wife's womb.  Jacob also was not commanded to take another wife, it was out of deception, but he was also involved with deception with his brother Esau.  This was known to his mother, and I am not saying it was not of the Lord, but his father in law's deceiving Jacob was definitely now.  It caused him so many problems!!!!

 

Also, his wives were in constant competition.  He loved Rachael, and he was angry with her for telling him to take her maid, as his grandmother did, and he relented as Abraham did, but it caused a lot of grief.

 

D&C 49 is a precursor to the Word of Wisdom and of Eternal marriage.  The Lord again states what is in Jacob 2, and even expounds saying that the earth may reach the measure of its creation and be filled with the measure of man by One woman per man, same as Adam, as we know it from our scripture, and Noah, again from the Lord's scripture.  We are allowed to believe what we want as human beings, just because a person is the President of this Church, does not make them different in any degree from the nursery leader, truly.  Joseph made BIG mistakes, some that took years to undo, some that we are going to have to if we get it, and don't lose it like the Savior says we will.  Read 3 Nephi, when we reject the fullness, which is direct communication with Christ Himself, instead of just wanting a prophet to do this for us, as did the people with Moses.

 

We are to be looking forward to Zion.  This an be a different discussion, but I am trying to show that we are speaking rhetoric to not know Joseph's real words.  I can tell of a friends death experience in a bit, just like Sarah Monet, or like Spencer's in Visions of Glory where he was shown the Lord's table, and why the Lord said "and it pleaseth me none at all except in times of winter or famine, and then reiterates it.  Yet, we think hamburgers are a staple, and have completely disregarded this council another touchy subject but a real one nonetheless.

 

I am not saying that there may not be some plural marriage in the next life, but it was not mandatory.  I can state that Joseph Smith never revealed this as the case, only Brigham Young.  My father is sealed to two women, my mother who was killed in a car accident and another woman who has married again, now for 15 years, my father died at 44.  I know that she would rather and will be sealed to the man she is with.  This is the Lord's plan for everyone to have free agency, and never ever intended for a woman to hurt by being forced to watch as her husband at the same time she is alive, be in bed with someone else.

 

It led to other serious issues such as murder and "Blood Atonement", etc.  We just have not cleaned up all the history, but the Lord always rights the ship, He is still doing so with us.  We have yet to build the tower in D&C 101, and that is where we are overrun by the enemy, making Isaiah, and Daniel, Revelations important for us.  We simply must understand the past so we can see some of our mistakes.

[zionslight]

I believe this discussion can lead us into really interesting topics in the Book of Mormon that have not yet been completely understood but when the timing is right, they are reading like a newspaper, because we are living them.  Nephi spoke to us and told us that.

 

There were many mistakes in the church history, and a lot of cover up.  It is a truth.  They believed completely in lying for the Lord.  They did not listen to Joseph Smith, they called him back, and like a "lamb going to the slaughter", and like Christ, he was martyred, or gave up his own life, as did the Lord.  Had the brethren listened to him and not wanted to preserve their property, had the people listened to Joseph and started to share their property and not have gotten selfish and refused to do so, they could have established Zion.  

 

I just got done with Approaching Zion by Hugh Nibley, and it is phenomenal, it makes sense of some of this.  The Lord allows us to believe in what we want, to serve our purpose, but when we want to see His purpose, it changes things.  We had to go through all those years of wandering in the wilderness, and in ways we are still wandering until we live by the truths in the Book of Mormon, have the ministering of angels, baptism of fire, communicating face to face with our Lord, etc.   We are told we will reject these things by the Lord Himself.  We are not taking Isaiah seriously who talks about the King of Assyria, Daniel calls him the King of the North, John whose mandate was to tell us of these things also in revelations talks about the army of 200,000,000. 

 

I believe we must know Joseph, because he still holds the keys to establish Zion, and is the servant as stated in D&C 101, 103.  They simply did not build the tower, not we will have to redeem Zion.  They did change records, and had to leave a lot of originals behind.  

 

They did the testing and found that Joseph Smith has no other descendants other than Emma.  And much of the stories associated with are stories, Joseph never recorded an angel coming to him, that was word of mouth, but he did record that he did not have any other wife.  He was sealing men and women to him, as the Lord was sealing this dispensation to him.

 

It is all truly exciting, and it makes the women breath a sigh of relief, that at no time will this "revelation" be given, that is why it is so implicate in the scriptures how the Lord feels for His righteous branch in this land, and he will never do it differently.  Even after Christ, a bishop could only be bishop if they had one wife. The Lord in His scriptures has never taught it any other way, from the beginning, and made it clear all through Doctrine and Covenants.  They changed it and suffered and paid the price.  Parley P Pratt was killed, they were imprisoned, not because they stopped it, but because they kept it after they were warned by Joseph, and wanted an Old Testament church when the Lord and Joseph were establishing a Book of Mormon church and where Isaiah says all of us will know the Lord, like they did.

 

We are at a very special time to have all this available to us to see and study.  The Church just got permission from the RLDS church to post a lot of the original documents on LDS.org, with one stipulation that they could not alter or change anything, as has been done in the past.  It is all good.

[Yirgacheffe]

Hello VGJ...

You said you were surprised and had never heard of BY's 50+ wives, etc... Where have you been... I learned about that when I was quite young...

I really dislike your assertion that the Church is "screwing us over" by not allowing us our exaltation.  This is a complete misunderstanding on your part and you really do need to study more

You need to read and study more... no one will be forced to live polygamy.  I personally do not believe it will be required for exaltation.

There are men today who have been sealed to more than one wife, i.e., widowers who remarry for instance.  Example: A young man is sealed to a wife who becomes ill and dies... they have three children born in the Covenant.  Two years later he remarries and is sealed to his second wife, with whom he has several children, also born in the Covenant.  That man will have both his families for the eternities. 

Then there is me... I am widowed... no children... sealed to my husband and he only to me.  I do not want to live polygamy in the eternities (at least not the way I think now), nor do I believe we will be required to do so.  But what if I gain a different perspective beyond the veil... We may choose to do so depending on what God wants  or requires for his children.

 

GG

But a woman in the same scenario will not be with both families in the eternities. 

[Alan]

True, but all historians believe that Joseph Smith did practice polygamy. 

 

I advise you to take no comfort in this because the vast majority of historians also believe Joseph Smith was a fraud.

[Alan]

Except that this is simply not in evidence.  Monogamy was NOT the Lord's commanded norm at any point in history except for the following:

 

1. Jacob 2 where men were living it wickedly and it had to be withdrawn.

2. During the great apostasy when the Roman pagan tradition merged with the early Christian Church, which was not by God's command.

3. 1890 and OD1 (or to be more precise 1904 onward and the 2nd Manifesto) when it was withdrawn for political reasons.

 

In other words, it has only been the norm for a tiny fraction of earths history, and there are ONLY two recorded times when God directly outlawed it.

From Adam till Christ it was a perfectly acceptable form of marriage, even in the eyes of God.  From Christ to Joseph Smith when the gospel was not on the earth it became a forbidden form of marriage.

That should tell us something about what happened in 1890.

 

How many wives did Adam have?

It seems pretty clear that the original marriage, conducted by God himself in the Garden, was of one man and one woman. So I would suggest that is the norm and God's preferred arrangement. He even instructed Adam (ie. all of us) to "cleave unto they wife (note the singular) and none else" There was therefore no room for Adam to take a plural wife or he would have been cleaving unto an "else".

[MormonFreeThinker]

I advise you to take no comfort in this because the vast majority of historians also believe Joseph Smith was a fraud.

 

Show me the peer-reviewed studies.

 

All historians believe that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy because of the evidence.

Historians that do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, that is their opinion. 

I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that is a religious statement. 

 

"the resurrection of Jesus, that belief is a theological belief. You can’t prove the resurrection"  - Bart D. Ehrman

Edited September 2, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker