Was Polygamy A Church Mistake?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Ellen, if it's practiced in heaven then I'll do it.

[JLHPROF]

Ellen, if it's practiced in heaven then I'll do it.

 

The key for exaltation is being willing to do ANYTHING God requires.  Period.

People who say "I would never do that, even if it was commanded" are the ones who will end up not getting as far as they think.

 

By being open minded you've won half the battle.  Whether God requires it or not of you, you are willing to do his will without hesitation.

That's the real battle.  (Check the quotes on the ancient thread you resurrected).

[VideoGameJunkie]

Thanks JLHPROF! I would do anything God required of me, even if it seems odd to show obedience and my love for Heavenly Father.

[KevinG]

Okay, it seemed like you were presenting these dynasties as being the result of posterity like that of Jacob. If it isn't about that, if it is about being linked to other families through the priesthood, aren't we doing that now, without polygamy?

We are but there are some significant differences.

1) During the start of the dispensation the Chirch was focused on gathering, now we are focused on going out into the world. Our social and organizational structures reflect this.

2) The US government put restrictions on the Saints practices and the Lord revealed that their sacrifice would be accepted as though it were given in full, even though the practice was discontinued through no fault of their own.

3) the start of the dispensation included a restoration of all things in the Gospel, including the principle. But once that was fulfilled and prevented the Lord no longer requires it at our hands.

The bottom line on polygamy and the blessings that come from it, is the same as any commandment. If commanded by God and we obey there are blessings. If we disobey we lose those blessings. Currently the commandment is that while polygyny is "on the books" in our Doctrine and Commandments, we are commanded not to practice it. I think this also explains why it worked for the Saints a century ago, but seems very problematic for the FLDS groups who practice it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit (in my admittedly judgmental opinion).

[KevinG]

While Brigham Young said only those who practice it will become Gods, those words were directed at those who were commanded to live it. The whole section of his discourse in context makes much more sense than the cherry picked sentence the critics love to trot out.

[JLHPROF]

While Brigham Young said only those who practice it will become Gods, those words were directed at those who were commanded to live it. The whole section of his discourse in context makes much more sense than the cherry picked sentence the critics love to trot out.

 

I don't agree with that interpretation of that discourse.  Even in context.  Plural marriage was not "by calling only" in those days.  It may have been during Joseph's day.  It may have been at times.  But it was hardly a case by case calling.

 

In April 1884 John Taylor issued directions that EVERY bishopric member and stake presidency member prepare to enter polygamy or offer up their resignations to the Church.  (This was in response to his revelation of 1882 which was presented to all Apostles, Seventies, and Stake Presidents, and voted on and approved - yet never put into canon).

 

That wide ranging hardly makes it a "personal calling".  Any male ward member can be called to be a Bishop and would be required to be a polygamist.

[rockpond]

We are but there are some significant differences.

1) During the start of the dispensation the Chirch was focused on gathering, now we are focused on going out into the world. Our social and organizational structures reflect this.

2) The US government put restrictions on the Saints practices and the Lord revealed that their sacrifice would be accepted as though it were given in full, even though the practice was discontinued through no fault of their own.

3) the start of the dispensation included a restoration of all things in the Gospel, including the principle. But once that was fulfilled and prevented the Lord no longer requires it at our hands.

The bottom line on polygamy and the blessings that come from it, is the same as any commandment. If commanded by God and we obey there are blessings. If we disobey we lose those blessings. Currently the commandment is that while polygyny is "on the books" in our Doctrine and Commandments, we are commanded not to practice it. I think this also explains why it worked for the Saints a century ago, but seems very problematic for the FLDS groups who practice it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit (in my admittedly judgmental opinion).

 

I understand all that.  Nothing new there that I haven't known for decades.  I was just trying to understand what you meant by "creating Godly dynasties" as a justification for polygamy.  I'm still not seeing it as you are now going back to the usual explanations.

[KevinG]

I don't agree with that interpretation of that discourse. Even in context. Plural marriage was not "by calling only" in those days. It may have been during Joseph's day. It may have been at times. But it was hardly a case by case calling.

In April 1884 John Taylor issued directions that EVERY bishopric member and stake presidency member prepare to enter polygamy or offer up their resignations to the Church. (This was in response to his revelation of 1882 which was presented to all Apostles, Seventies, and Stake Presidents, and voted on and approved - yet never put into canon).

That wide ranging hardly makes it a "personal calling". Any male ward member can be called to be a Bishop and would be required to be a polygamist.

I can see that and agree to it. Still his audience was the Saints who were commanded at that time. I sure Brigham was aware that God commands His people to live that commandment at times and not others. I really doubt those of us who canot live it would be damned. However I do wonder at the fate of Saints who today will not accept it, "at least in principle" as Brigham said. I doubt those who denigrate the practice by our early prophets will be welcomed warmly by them. Those who incidentally will be the judges of our dispensation.

Here is the text JLHPROF and I are discussing by the way:

We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Edited October 24, 2014 by KevinG

[KevinG]

 I'm still not seeing it as you are now going back to the usual explanations.

I'm convinced by the usual explanations, added to some personal prayer and revelation. I'm sure the usual explanations for things like faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost suffice.

I tend to look at the call to live the principle as an Abrahamic test. Not readily understood by those who are not asked to make it, but full of power and blessings for those who obey the call. Not all evidence of the bells sings in these lineages will be seen in mortality, but some can be in the influence and power they wield in the restored Gospel today.

[JLHPROF]

I really doubt those of us who canot live it would be damned. However I do wonder at the fate of Saints who today will not accept it, "at least in principle" as Brigham said. I doubt those who denigrate the practice by our early prophets will be welcomed warmly by them. Those who incidentally will be the judges of our dispensation.

 

Agreed.  I can't wait to see some of those members in good standing when they come before Joseph Smith to be judged and get to explain to him why they spoke ill of him, his wives, the revelation he received, and how they swore it was a mistake and they would never live it.

 

And then Joseph heads home to dinner with his 30+ wives after the judgement is passed...

[rockpond]

I'm convinced by the usual explanations, added to some personal prayer and revelation. I'm sure the usual explanations for things like faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost suffice.

I tend to look at the call to live the principle as an Abrahamic test. Not readily understood by those who are not asked to make it, but full of power and blessings for those who obey the call. Not all evidence of the bells sings in these lineages will be seen in mortality, but some can be in the influence and power they wield in the restored Gospel today.

 

I have no problem with that belief.  And I am not one who denigrates those who lived the practice.  I just wanted to under the Godly dynasties idea but if you don't have more to say about that, it's fine.

[KevinG]

Agreed.  I can't wait to see some of those members in good standing when they come before Joseph Smith to be judged and get to explain to him why they spoke ill of him, his wives, the revelation he received, and how they swore it was a mistake and they would never live it.

 

And then Joseph heads home to dinner with his 30+ wives after the judgement is passed...

For their sakes lets he they respond like Thomas to the Saviors resurrection and not like Esau who sold his inheritance for pottage. I'd hate to lose eternal blessings because I thought the requirement to get them was "icky".

Then again can we really be expected to have a testimony of those things we are not required to do? I expect some mercy for those subject to biases from contemporary social mores.

[rockpond]

I sure Brigham was aware that God commands His people to live that commandment at times and not others. I really doubt those of us who canot live it would be damned.

 

My money is on Brigham Young believing that polygamy would be practiced until the second coming.  I think that such a belief would be more consistent with what we know of him.

 

Also, I don't believe that his comment that only those who lived the practice would be Gods meant that everyone else would be damned (as your comment above suggests).  There is some space there between godhood and damnation.

[JLHPROF]

My money is on Brigham Young believing that polygamy would be practiced until the second coming.  I think that such a belief would be more consistent with what we know of him.

 

Also, I don't believe that his comment that only those who lived the practice would be Gods meant that everyone else would be damned (as your comment above suggests).  There is some space there between godhood and damnation.

 

General authorities believe that right up till 1904...Apostle Abraham Owen Woodruff made a famous prophecy about it.  He took his second wife in 1900.

 

no year will ever pass, whether it be in this country, in India, or wher- ever, from now until the coming of the Saviour, when children will not be born in plural marriage. And I make this prophecy in the name of Jesus Christ.”

 

Wilford Woodruff made a prophecy about it just a few months before the manifesto was issued.

And yes, John Taylor, Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young also prophesied the same thing, although they died before there was any indication of it being revoked.

Edited October 24, 2014 by JLHPROF

[KevinG]

I have no problem with that belief.  And I am not one who denigrates those who lived the practice.  I just wanted to under the Godly dynasties idea but if you don't have more to say about that, it's fine.

I am truly not cutting off the conversation, sorry if it sounded like that. I just don't have a novel way of expressing this beyond the standard conversations you have already heard.

Let me try this. The difference between:

Raising a large posterity.

Raising a righteous posterity.

Raising a large and righteous posterity.

Sacrificing selfish desires to Raise a large and righteous posterity blessed by God.

All can be blessings but the latter requiring extra sacrifice and bestowing extra blessings is what I think polygamy was all about.

[KevinG]

My money is on Brigham Young believing that polygamy would be practiced until the second coming.  I think that such a belief would be more consistent with what we know of him.

 

Also, I don't believe that his comment that only those who lived the practice would be Gods meant that everyone else would be damned (as your comment above suggests).  There is some space there between godhood and damnation.

I tend to think of falling short of all of fathers blessings as damnation. Don't worry when a Mormon damns you, you still end up in Protestant heaven. :-)

[rockpond]

I tend to think of falling short of all of fathers blessings as damnation. Don't worry when a Mormon damns you, you still end up in Protestant heaven. :-)

 

Yes, that is one way (and a valid way) to look at damnation.  But I don't think damnation is what Brigham Young envisioned for the Saints who were not practicing polygamy (and therefore destined to become Gods).  #speculation

[KevinG]

General authorities believe that right up till 1904...Apostle Abraham Owen Woodruff made a famous prophecy about it.  He took his second wife in 1900.

Wilford Woodruff made a prophecy about it just a few months before the manifesto was issued.

And yes, John Taylor, Heber C. Kimball and Brigham Young also prophesied the same thing, although they died before there was any indication of it being revoked.

This opens another interesting line of thought. As though prophets have a clear, perfect line on revelation. They also need to pray, ponder, learn, make mistakes, repent, seek divine guidance, try to follow it, receive correction, improve, receive mercy... Brigham wished for death rather than live the principle, but he was obedient to God. I suspect Brigham wives can tell stories of his struggles to treat a household full of women's doubles children equitably and with honor!

[KevinG]

Yes, that is one way (and a valid way) to look at damnation.  But I don't think damnation is what Brigham Young envisioned for the Saints who were not practicing polygamy (and therefore destined to become Gods).  #speculation

That is not how this reads to me. Especially with the first few sentences.

We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. - Brigham Young

[EllenMaksoud]

Ellen, if it's practiced in heaven then I'll do it.

Matt 22:30 KJV. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Look it up. Remember, according to Mormon doctrine, the Book of Mormon does not replace the Bible (in as much as it is translated correctly). The Book of Mormon is a "Further Revelation of Jesus Christ". To me, Polygamy was clearly for this earth. I am 67 and alone. If I had a chance to live in a household with other women with one man around ... well that's about all I could stand.  You bet, I would do it. It would be a sort of non consummated polygamy.

 

Now remember, in the era in which the church was forged, women's property rights were up in the air. Look it up in Wiki "Married Women's Property Acts in the United States".

 

So, doubtlessly women needed relief. I don't think he meant any harm, but that he was seeking to protect the women involved.

Edited October 24, 2014 by EllenMaksoud

[KevinG]

That sermon neither requires all to practice it ( at least in their faith) or condemns those who don't to hellfire and brimstone (others may attain a glory, but..)

[rockpond]

I am truly not cutting off the conversation, sorry if it sounded like that. I just don't have a novel way of expressing this beyond the standard conversations you have already heard.

Let me try this. The difference between:

Raising a large posterity.

Raising a righteous posterity.

Raising a large and righteous posterity.

Sacrificing selfish desires to Raise a large and righteous posterity blessed by God.

All can be blessings but the latter requiring extra sacrifice and bestowing extra blessings is what I think polygamy was all about.

 

Well, when we look at Brigham & Joseph I can see a righteous posterity and one that is blessed by God but I don't see it being larger than what could have been produced had each of those women been with her own husband. And then the children would have had the advantage of a full-time father rather than one splitting his time between 55 wives and 56 children.

[strappinglad]

It's really very obvious, polygamy was a mistake , but it was God's mistake not Joseph's. God was wrong to entrust the principle with fallible man. God supposed that the US government which He had established would never go so far as to seek to destroy the fledgling church which He had established. He had to repent ,just like He did according to Gen 6:6 and withdraw the principle with great reluctance. He was unaware that His little experiment would continue to frustrate and confuse members almost 100 years after it was started. The natural law of unintended consequences apparently can undo even heavenly plans.

Maybe I should make this a poll to see if the majority of board members here ,as I am certain, agree with the above.

( for some reason the inside of my cheek hurts)

[KevinG]

Matt 22:30 KJV. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Look it up. Remember, according to Mormon doctrine, the Book of Mormon does not replace the Bible (in as much as it is translated correctly). The Book of Mormon is a "Further Revelation of Jesus Christ". To me, Polygamy was clearly for this earth. I am 67 and alone. If I had a chance to live in a household with other women with one man around ... well that's about all I could stand.  You bet, I would do it. It would be a sort of non consummated polygamy.

 

Now remember, in the era in which the church was forged, women's property rights were up in the air.

 

So, doubtlessly women needed relief. I don't think he meant any harm, but that he was seeking to protect the women involved.

The temples will be open in the Millenium, and we do posthumous work for those who cannot do it for themselves.

This passage was also in response to a question about those not keeping their covenants. There will be opportunity for all,things to be restored to their proper order. The only way to be alone forever is to knowingly reject Christ or voluntarily give up blessings He offers.

[rockpond]

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them. - Brigham Young

 

I'm confused by what you are suggesting now.

 

It seems clear to me that BY believed that you had to practice polygamy to become a God.  Those who did not, would still attain glory and come into the presence of the Father & Son but could not "reign as kings in glory".

 

That doesn't sound like damnation (except for when we define it as *not receiving all*).

 

Am I missing your point?