Polygamy - Optional Now, Essential Pre-1890?

[Duncan]

Circumcision is still required today. It's just shifted from foreskin to heart.

 

 

WHAT????????????? oh man!! be right back I need to make a phone call

[K-2]

Circumcision is still required today. It's just shifted from foreskin to heart.

We were talking about actual circumcision, not a figurative allusion to it. In 3 Nephi 9: 19-20 it says that sacrifice has shifted from dead animals on an altar to a broken heart, and yet Joseph Smith taught that "it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets. The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation" (TPJS pg. 172).

 

edited to add: Circumcision pertained to a lesser law, the law of Moses, which was remedial and tutorial, but not eternal or everlasting in nature. Sacrifice and polygamy existed before the law of Moses though, and were connected with the new and everlasting covenant. When circumcision was first required, the Lord said "the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people," yet "The Church under direction of Peter and the Twelve, and acting under the guidance of the Spirit, declared that circumcision was not obligatory for gentile converts" (Bible Dictionary "Circumcision"), which could not have been right if it were a necessary part of the new and everlasting covenant.

Edited September 28, 2014 by K-2

[Calm]

 

edited to add: Circumcision pertained to a lesser law, the law of Moses, which was remedial and tutorial, but not eternal or everlasting in nature. Sacrifice and polygamy existed before the law of Moses though, and were connected with the new and everlasting covenant. When circumcision was first required, the Lord said "the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people," yet "The Church under direction of Peter and the Twelve, and acting under the guidance of the Spirit, declared that circumcision was not obligatory for gentile converts" (Bible Dictionary "Circumcision"), which could not have been right if it were a necessary part of the new and everlasting covenant.

And yet is it described as everlasting in the scriptures.

[K-2]

Moroni 8:8 says "the law of circumcision is done away in me."

[Calm]

I have no doubt that law of circumcision is "done away".  I am merely pointing out that it was also taught to be everlasting…which may mean that how some are interpreting "everlasting" for plural marriage may not be how God means it.

[Avatar4321]

I think it's important to remember that Everlasting is one of God's names

[K-2]

Genesis 17: 11-13
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

 

The covenant is everlasting, not the token of it. The Lord knew that in a few generations the children of Israel would go astray and took the measure of circumcision in advance in order to keep them separate from other people. If He had waited until they were journeying in the wilderness of Sinai it would have been too late.

[halconero]

We were talking about actual circumcision, not a figurative allusion to it. In 3 Nephi 9: 19-20 it says that sacrifice has shifted from dead animals on an altar to a broken heart, and yet Joseph Smith taught that "it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets. The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation" (TPJS pg. 172).

 

edited to add: Circumcision pertained to a lesser law, the law of Moses, which was remedial and tutorial, but not eternal or everlasting in nature. Sacrifice and polygamy existed before the law of Moses though, and were connected with the new and everlasting covenant. When circumcision was first required, the Lord said "the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people," yet "The Church under direction of Peter and the Twelve, and acting under the guidance of the Spirit, declared that circumcision was not obligatory for gentile converts" (Bible Dictionary "Circumcision"), which could not have been right if it were a necessary part of the new and everlasting covenant.

 

Circumcision pertained to the Abrahamic covenant which antedates the law of Moses. Sure, it was subsumed into the Law, but so were aspects of sacrifice as well. There is also nothing in the scriptures referring to the the circumcision of the heart which makes it any more figurative than the reception of the Holy Ghost. Neither is a physical ordinance, yet both have eternal and contemporaneous significance. 

[K-2]

The Lord said to Wilford Woodruff in the 1880 revelation, "woe unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the Patriarchal law of Abraham, which leadeth to Celestial Glory, which has been revealed unto my Saints through the mouth of my servant Joseph, for whosoever doeth these things shall be damned, saith the Lord of Hosts, and shall be broken up and wasted away from under heaven by the judgments which I have sent forth, and which shall not return unto me void."

Why would the Lord make such a big deal about something that is really nothing more than an unpopular option? Why would the Lord take it any more seriously than we do now?

[Tacenda]

And why would people go underground or die for the principle? Such a contrast to President Hinckley mentioning in an interview once that living polygamy back then was not doctrinal. ETA: But I understand that Pres. Hinckley probably understood otherwise, just didn't explain as well as he should have.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Also, would there ever be a day that the polygamist sects outnumber our membership totals? Especially if it's no longer illegal, and would that be something a future prophet might see fit to bring back into practice for the living because their membership rose to a far greater number than the mainstream LDS church?

[smac97]

Anecdotal stories aside, studies have shown that Mormon polygamous marriages actually produced less children per wife.

 

Just look at BY for an example of this.  BY had 55 wives and 57 children for an average of just over one child per wife.  Or if you want to only include his 16 wives who conceived children that would be an average of 3.5 children per wife or about half of what the average American woman of the time.  Had each of BY's wives individually married an LDS man we would expect to have seen a posterity much larger than BY was able to produce on his own.

I see your point. However, Jacob 2:30 was not a reference to straightforward human fecundity: "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."

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[omni]

I see your point. However, Jacob 2:30 was not a reference to straightforward human fecundity: "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."

Thanks,

-Smac

But doesn't that presume the rather sexist notion that "raising seed into me" is dependent on the husband?

[smac97]

But doesn't that presume the rather sexist notion that "raising seed into me" is dependent on the husband?

 

Only if you find polygamy per se "sexist."  I don't.

 

Also, the focus here is not on the polygamist husband, or the polygamist wives, or on their straightforward fecundity, but is instead on their posterity in the Church.

 

Many, many observant Latter-day Saints today can trace their lineage to polygamous roots.  I'm not sure there's a way to quantitatively assess whether the number of observant Latter-day Saints today would have been greater or lesser had the early Church not had polygamous marriages.  My sense, however, is that polygamy had an overall net effect of creating large numbers of children and posterity which has resulted in large numbers of today's observant Latter-day Saints.

 

Do you have any thoughts on how this thesis could be tested?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

PLURAL MARRIAGE 101

 

1. Plural marriage was restored by revelation as part of the restoration of all things.  It was practiced by most scriptural prophets.

2. The leaders during the time it was practiced taught it was 100% required/essential for exaltation.

3. The leaders during the time it was practiced taught that it was the family system of the eternities and was how Abraham, Christ and even Heavenly Father lived, and that we needed to be like them.

4. Members were forced to go into hiding to prevent legal repercussions and continue to practice it and many chose not to obey.

5. A revelation was received that told the saints God would fight their battles for them in this matter.

6. More laws began to be passed that would have taken the temples and Church property away, dissolved the Church and stopped the work.

7. Pres. Woodruff was told by revelation to issue a public declaration known as the manifesto.

8. Virtually every general authority completely ignored the manifesto and continued to privately perform marriages, marry more wives and have more children, including moving to Mexico and Canada to do it.

9. The Reed Smoot trials publicized the private continuation of polygamy forcing Pres. Joseph F. Smith to issue the 2nd manifesto in 1904, effectively banning plural marriage from the Church.

10. Two Apostles were excommunicated for ignoring the 2nd manifesto, although both later received their blessings restored.

11. Fundamentalist groups continued the practice based on various claims of priesthood authority and the statements of early leaders that polygamy would never be taken from the earth.

12. Plural sealings continue for the deceased in our temples today leading to the assumption that plural marriage will either be restored a final time or at the very least will be permitted in the eternities when we associate with earlier generations of polygamists.

 

I am sure there are those who will disagree with this summary, but it would be the height of chosen blindness to say that plural marriage was a temporary thing that is now gone for good.  Whether it is necessary for exaltation and will have to be eventually lived by all the righteous is simply speculation based on a few scriptures and the teachings of those who practiced it.

[omni]

 

Many, many observant Latter-day Saints today can trace their lineage to polygamous roots. 

 

Agree, but based on the study I would presume there would be even more had there been no polygamy as I see no reason why an observant monogamous Mormon male would have a lower ratio of observant Mormon children.

 

 I'm not sure there's a way to quantitatively assess whether the number of observant Latter-day Saints today would have been greater or lesser had the early Church not had polygamous marriages.  My sense, however, is that polygamy had an overall net effect of creating large numbers of children and posterity which has resulted in large numbers of today's observant Latter-day Saints.

 

Do you have any thoughts on how this thesis could be tested?

 

 

 

It would certainly be difficult to test, but I would suspect that Polygamous males had a higher ratio of observant children because non-polygamous males' ability to find an observant wife (or any wife for that matter) would have decreased due to the smaller pool of eligible mates.

[CV75]

 What is different about our situation today?

That was them then; this is us now. My life has eternal consequence for me, so anything I am asked to do is an eternal principle.

[saemo]

No global flood doesn't mean Noah is a myth.  The one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

 

And, to get back on the subject, someone already mentioned circumcision.  At one time it was essential, an "everlasting convenant."  Not for us.  Things changed.  God deals with different people at different times in different ways according to their circumstances and needs.  I don't know why people have a hard time with that.

The hard time, is that it presents a fickle God, not one of surety and unfailing.

[Calm]

Agree, but based on the study I would presume there would be even more had there been no polygamy as I see no reason why an observant monogamous Mormon male would have a lower ratio of observant Mormon children.

 

The question would be is whether or not those observant plural marriage women would have been in observant monogamous marriages.  It is almost an guaranteed proposition that plural marriage families or at least the parents would be observant LDS, one cannot find that same guarantee in monogamous marriages in the same time period and given the general more observant religious behavior of women in Christian faith, it seems likely that there would be more observant women than men overall and thus monogamous marriages would be of 'mixed faith' (in terms of significant levels of devotion at least)  Since having both parents observant leads, I believe, to the greater likelihood of children being observant (and grandchildren, etc), it would be more likely that children in plural marriages would continue in the faith than if all the women had been in monogamous ones instead.

 

Anyone know of a study that compares religious observance of the descendants of monogamous and plural marriage in the first and second generation?

 

BY and other leaders were urging their young men to marry and chiding them for not doing their duty, etc.  Would this have been a topic if there were no single observant women present for an observant male to marry?  It may have been more difficult to find the type of wife one wanted given that women had a greater choice of who to marry (including divorcing their plural husbands and marrying monogamously as BY had no problem with telling them this was just fine) while men did not, but is there any indication in any study that devout men were not able to get married due to lack of devout women?

Edited September 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The hard time, is that it presents a fickle God, not one of surety and unfailing.

So you believe God not requiring his children at this time to live the Law of Moses makes him look fickle?

[saemo]

So you believe God not requiring his children at this time to live the Law of Moses makes him look fickle?

I see continuity, from the OT to the NT. The Law and the Prophets are fulfilled in Christ. So no, I don't see a fickle God, but one who has fulfilled the promise of our Salvation via the New and Everlasting Covenant. That Covenant being, Jesus Himself.

If you see the same in polygamy, fine. But I've never heard a Mormon say anything about polygamy being fulfilled in Christ, therefore, what is fulfilled by God is not sought after to fulfill again. More often I read the question, "would God command polygamy again"?

I don't believe God is going to call us to live the Law again, and would not wonder if I would ever be asked to. It is clear, the Law existed for the perfection of the people of God. As a Christian, I understand that we are perfected through Christ, not the Law of Moses. My surety of this is because of my surety in Christ.

See Romans chapters 5-8.

Edited September 30, 2014 by saemo

[USU78]

My great-great grandfather had 3 wives, all in succession.  He was a Nauvoo policeman, Seventy, and whatnot.  Served like 12 missions in the Eastern States and South Seas.  He was never required to live The Principle.

 

His son, my great grandfather, had 3 wives, all at the same time.  He was called as bishop in Cache County after his temple mission in St George, and kept not agreeing to live the principle.

 

His wife was barren.

 

He received, according to his own holographic witness, an angelic visitation commanding him to wise up and do it.  He was promised that if he did, his wife's barrenness would be healed.

 

He delayed again.

 

Then he finally relented, and his wife suggested her Primary 2nd Councilor as a sister wife.

 

She became pregnant before the 1st plural marriage was performed, but after she and he agreed to it.

 

So, no, it wasn't always required.

 

It was a calling.

 

And some weren't called whom you'd think would have been.

 

Each person had his/her own trials.  My GG-Grandfather's trial was burying wives along the trail west and then away from Johnston's Army.  His son's trial was polygyny and the Sugarhouse prison, life-long depression and an incurable infection that ultimately settled in and took one of his legs.

 

I'm annoyed at the cavalier dismissal of these folks, both in this thread and others.

 

OP:  You don't know a thing about them.  Yet you judge them.

 

USU "What a maroon" 78

[smac97]

Agree, but based on the study I would presume there would be even more had there been no polygamy as I see no reason why an observant monogamous Mormon male would have a lower ratio of observant Mormon children.

"Them" being "observant Latter-day Saints?" That does not seem to be a testable presumption.

Thanks,

-Smac