Was Polygamy A Church Mistake?

[EllenMaksoud]

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.

I am not a life long Mormon so can not knowledgeably discuss certain matters.

 

Twice I have put in a reference about women's property rights, and it just goes away. Hmmmm

[KevinG]

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.

Larger posterity in this life is not the primary blessing, or a requirement of polygamy. Sacrifice sets those families apart as consecrated to God and peculiar from their generation. While innumerable posterity like the stars in this life or the next is a possible blessing, the primary blessing is a righteous posterity raised into the Lord.

There are many what it's about how many righteous priesthood holders were prepared to support the available women, but in the end it doesn't matter, and that is not the primary reason for polygamy. Read D&C 132 and see if you can identify the Lords reasons.

[KevinG]

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)

Start out with small snarky remarks and limber up before you go for the full fledged parody. It will prevent cramps and bleeding cheeks.

[KevinG]

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?

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/damnation

As used in the KJV this word has a wider meaning than is at once apparent from modern usage. Damnation is the opposite of salvation and exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges and hence be damned to that extent. See Matt. 23:14, 33; Mark 3:29; 16:16; John 5:29; Rom. 13:2; 1 Cor. 11:29; 2 Ne. 9:24; 3 Ne. 18:28–29; D&C 58:26–29; 84:74; 112:29; 132:4, 6, 27.

Edited October 24, 2014 by KevinG

[Calm]

 Any male ward member can be called to be a Bishop and would be required to be a polygamist.

Wasn't bishop more of a long term calling at the time though?  A much smaller percentage of overall membership would likely have had that command given them.  It wasn't given to any who might at sometime be called to be a Bishop but those who were Bishops, etc.

[rockpond]

Larger posterity in this life is not the primary blessing, or a requirement of polygamy. Sacrifice sets those families apart as consecrated to God and peculiar from their generation. While innumerable posterity like the stars in this life or the next is a possible blessing, the primary blessing is a righteous posterity raised into the Lord.

There are many what it's about how many righteous priesthood holders were prepared to support the available women, but in the end it doesn't matter, and that is not the primary reason for polygamy. Read D&C 132 and see if you can identify the Lords reasons.

 

A restoration of all things seems to be the only reason provided in Section 132.  Additionally, 132 reads, for me, as a commandment to enter into the new and everlasting covenant, not necessarily polygamy.

 

I agree with you that sacrifice sets those families apart.  But then you confuse that by saying that "the primary blessing is a righteous posterity raised unto the Lord" because that wasn't how Joseph practiced polygamy and the data suggests that Brigham's wives could have produced far more posterity with individual husbands.  Is your belief that there were so few righteous men that Brigham had to take on 55 extra wives?

[rockpond]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/damnation

As used in the KJV this word has a wider meaning than is at once apparent from modern usage. Damnation is the opposite of salvation and exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges and hence be damned to that extent. See Matt. 23:14, 33; Mark 3:29; 16:16; John 5:29; Rom. 13:2; 1 Cor. 11:29; 2 Ne. 9:24; 3 Ne. 18:28–29; D&C 58:26–29; 84:74; 112:29; 132:4, 6, 27.

 

Brother Kevin... You don't need to explain these basic principles to me.  I'm a 40 year old high priest... I got the basics, bud.

 

We're talking about what Brigham may or may not have meant in that sermon.  But I'm tired now and will probably not rejoin this topic.  Heading to bed.  Have a good night.

Edited October 24, 2014 by rockpond

[Calm]

I am not a life long Mormon so can not knowledgeably discuss certain matters.

 

Twice I have put in a reference about women's property rights, and it just goes away. Hmmmm

Property rights as you have explained them before could not have worked in either Kirtland or Nauvoo, because plural marriage was not legal according to the government (but instead was a purely religious relationship even if those involved considered it as lawful as anything the government might pronounce upon it because they saw it as God's law they were obeying) and would not have guaranteed a woman her rights even if the marriage wasn't secret in the first place.

 

In Utah there was a struggle to get the government to recognize that plural wives and their children also had a right to their husband/father's property.

Edited October 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

Take numbers out of it. The quality of those sacrifices and blessings is more important then the physical number of posterity. In fact there were probably fewer children overall, but those who were born were born I to a tight knit, set apart royal priesthood.

in a very practical sense setting apart a people or tribe out of the mainstream can crate stronger internal bonds and a good mechanism for perpetuating belief systems. At the same time having to live a communal lifestyle teaches many lessons about selflessness.

I'm not the one hanging onto the, polygamy was about population, thing. It could be a benefit, but more likely it would result in a smaller but tight knit society or tribe. The resulting disproportionate but positive impact of polygamous families in future church leadership and activity is mortal proof of that. Eternally we may have no idea of the result, but Brigham seemed to think it was Important for us to have the blessings of father Abraham (who was also called upon to make a rather difficult and socially awkward sacrifice).

[EllenMaksoud]

Property rights as you have explained them before could not have worked in either Kirtland or Nauvoo, because plural marriage was not legal according to the government (but instead was a purely religious relationship even if those involved considered it as lawful as anything the government might pronounce upon it because they saw it as God's law they were obeying) and would not have guaranteed a woman her rights even if the marriage wasn't secret in the first place.

I'll try to reference this a third time. It is a wiki and the title is: "Married Women's Property Acts in the United States". From the text of the article it seems to me that the laws were fluid during the time that the church was being formed. Remember that communication was slow, so it is possible, that due to confusion, some might have used that to provide credence to the idea of polygamy. It does not bother me one way or the other. I tried to cut and paste the URL to this board but either wiki or this board has issue with that use of it.

[KevinG]

Brother Kevin... You don't need to explain these basic principles to me. I'm a 40 year old high priest... I got the basics, bud.

We're talking about what Brigham may or may not have meant in that sermon. But I'm tired now and will probably not rejoin this topic. Heading to bed. Have a good night.

You noted you didn't think my definition of Damnation jived with Brigham's sermon. I provided the LDS Bible Dictionary which states damnation can come in degrees, and indeed reflects Brigham's statements about achieving glory, but falling short of all the blessings we can have.

Not even trying to be condescending here. Even though I've got a decade on you and was probably a High Priest when you were in the Aaronic Priesthood. Relax its not a contest. I was really trying to answer your line of inquiry.

Edited October 24, 2014 by KevinG

[Calm]

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.

 

Wilford Woodruff also made a statement there was confusion among all the prophets since Joseph over the Law of Adoption and how we were supposed to be sealing our families together.  In that statement, there are parts that could be interpreted as him thinking that they wouldn't get the sealing ordinances done in the way they are meant to be done for a very long time.  While the law of adoption is about sealing parents to children, it is not as if the two sealings are two completely different animals, they both deal with creating the eternal family and if the understanding of one was so incorrect and off and yet taught with such confidence until it was changed (and apparently expected to yet be changed again), it seems to me likely there should be the same concerns held for the other form of sealing that also demonstrated some variation at the beginning with polyandrous sealings even if once in Utah it appears for the most part to have settled into a particular style.

 

Are there any other indications there were concerns about the Law of Adoption before they were given in the explanation of the revelation to stop performing it and instead seal to our own parents?  Concerns stated in other places besides where Pres. Woodruff made his statement?

 

http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Woodruff,%20Wilford/WoodruffW_LawOfAdoption.html

 

My apologies if I have posted this here before, having a variety of talks in at least three different places:

 

Sorry for the length but there are key phrase throughout:

 

Joseph Smith, instead of living to be nearly a thousand years of age as Adam did, lived to be about thirty-eight years of age. He brought forth the record of the stick of Joseph in the hands of Ephraim--the history of the ancient inhabitants of this continent. By the power of God he translated that, and it has been published in many languages. Besides this, he organized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone. Men were ordained to the Priesthood and sent forth, from the various occupations of life, to carry this Gospel to the world. God informed Joseph Smith that he was called to prune the vineyard once more for the last time before the coming of the Son of Man. Since that, thousands of Elders of Israel have been sent into the world to preach the Gospel. Joseph Smith did all this during the fifteen years he held the Priesthood. Let any man read the revelations in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, which were given through him during the little time he spent here in the flesh. It is one of the greatest records that any man ever gave to the human family. Not only this, but he organized the endowments and did a great deal of other work. Who could expect him, during the short time he lived in the flesh, to do more than he did? I received my endowments from under his hands. He brought forth all these ordinances that have been given unto the Latter-day Saints. In fact, it is a marvel and a wonder that he performed as much as he did.

 

I want to say, as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that we should now go on and progress. We have not got through revelation. We have not got through the work of God. But at this period we want to go on and fulfill this commandment of God given through Malachi--that the Lord should send Elijah the prophet, "and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse." Ye sons of men, I say unto you, in the name of Israel's God, those very principles that God has revealed are what have stayed the judgments of the Almighty on the earth. Were it not for these principles, you and I would not be here to-day. We have had prophets and apostles. President Young, who followed President Joseph Smith, led us here. He organized these Temples and carried out the purposes of his calling and office. He laid the foundation of this great Temple on this block, as well as others in the mountains of Israel. What for? That we might carry out these principles of redemption for the dead. He accomplished all that God required at his hands. But he did not receive all the revelations that belong to this work; neither did President Taylor, nor has Wilford Woodruff. There will be no end to this work until it is perfected.

 

I want to lay before you what there is for us to do at this present time; and in doing this I desire particularly the attention of President Lorenzo Snow, of the Salt Lake Temple; President M. W. Merrill, of the Logan Temple; President J. D. T. McAllister, of the Manti Temple; and President D. H. Cannon, of the St. George Temple, and those associated with them. You have acted up to all the light and knowledge that you have had; but you have now something more to do than what you have done. We have not fully carried out those principles in fulfillment of the revelations of God to us, in sealing the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers. I have not felt satisfied, neither did President Taylor, neither has any man since the Prophet Joseph who has attended to the ordinance of adoption in the temples of our God. We have felt that there was more to be revealed upon this subject than we had received. Revelations were given to us in the St. George Temple, which President Young presented to the Church of God. Changes were made there, and we still have more changes to make, in order to satisfy our Heavenly Father, satisfy our dead and ourselves. I will tell you what some of them are. I have prayed over this matter, and my brethren have. We have felt, as President Taylor said, that we have got to have more revelation concerning sealing under the law of adoption. Well, what are these changes? One of them is the principle of adoption. In the commencement of adopting men and women in the Temple at Nauvoo, a great many persons were adopted to different men who were not of the lineage of their fathers, and there was a spirit manifested by some in that work that was not of God. Men would go out and electioneer and labor with all their power to get men adopted to them……...

 

Now, what are the feelings of Israel? They have felt that they wanted to be adopted to somebody. President Young was not satisfied in his mind with regard to the extent of this matter; President Taylor was not. When I went before the Lord to know who I should be adopted to (we were then being adopted to prophets and apostles), the Spirit of God said to me, "Have you not a father, who begot you?" "Yes, I have." "Then why not honor him? Why not be adopted to him?" "Yes," says I, "that is right." I was adopted to my father, and should have had my father sealed to his father, and so on back; and the duty that I want every man who presides over a temple to see performed from this day henceforth and forever, unless the Lord Almighty commands otherwise, is, let every man be adopted to his father. When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers. That is the will of God to this people. I want ll men who preside over these temples in these mountains of Israel to bear this in mind. ******What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this? No; I say let every man be adopted to his father; and then you will do exactly what God said when he declared He would send Elijah the prophet in the last days. Elijah the prophet appeared unto Joseph Smith and told him that the day had come when this principle must be carried out. Joseph Smith did not live long enough to enter any further upon these things. His soul was wound up with this work before he was martyred for the word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ. He told us that there must be a welding link of all dispensations and of the work of God from one generation to another. This was upon his mind more than most any other subject that was given to him. In my prayers the Lord revealed to me, that it was my duty to say to all Israel to carry this principle out, and in fulfillment of that revelation I lay it before this people.  I say to all men who are laboring in these temples, carry out this principle, and then we will make one step in advance of what we have had before.  Myself and counselors conversed upon this and were agreed upon it, and afterwards we laid it before all the Apostles who were here (two were absent--Brothers Thatcher and Lund, the latter being in England), and the Lord revealed to every one of these men--and they would bear testimony to it if they were to speak--that that was the word of the Lord to them….

 

Another principle connected with this subject I want to talk about. A man has married a woman, and they have a family of children. The man lays down in death without ever hearing the Gospel. His wife afterwards hears the Gospel and embraces it. She comes to the temple and she wants to be sealed to her husband, who was a good man. The feeling has been to deny this and to say, "No, he was not in the Church, and you cannot be sealed to your husband." Many a woman's heart has ached because of this, and as a servant of God I have broken that chain a good while ago. I have laid before every woman this principle and let her have her choice. Why deprive a woman of being sealed to her husband because he never heard the Gospel? What do any of us know with regard to him? Will he not hear the Gospel and embrace it in the spirit world? Look at Joseph Smith. Not one of Joseph Smith's fathers or brothers or sisters were in the covenant when he received the keys of the kingdom of God and translated the Book of Mormon. They afterwards received it. Every brother and sister that he had, and his father and his father's brothers, except Uncle Jesse Smith, embraced the Gospel. Now, suppose that any of these had died before they had the opportunity of entering into the covenant with the Lord through the Gospel, as his brother Alvin did; they would have been in the same position as Alvin, concerning whom the Lord, when Joseph saw him in the celestial kingdom, said:

All who have died without a knowledge of this Gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

 

So it will be with your fathers. There will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel. Jesus, while His body lay in the tomb, went and preached to the spirits in prison, who were destroyed in the days of Noah. After so long an imprisonment, in torment, they doubtless gladly embraced the Gospel, and if so they will be saved in the kingdom of God. The fathers of this people will embrace the Gospel. It is my duty to honor my father who begot me in the flesh. It is your duty to do the same. When you do this, the Spirit of God will be with you. And we shall continue this work, the Lord adding light to that which we have already received. I have had friends adopted to me. We all have, more or less. But I have had peculiar feelings about it, especially lately. There are men in this congregation who wish to be adopted to me. I say to them to-day, if they can hear me, Go and be adopted to your fathers, and save your fathers, and stand at the head of your father's house, as Saviors upon Mount Zion, and God will bless you in this. This is what I want to say, and what I want carried out in our temples.

 

The Almighty is with this people. We shall have all the revelations that we will need, if we will do our duty and obey the commandments of God. When any of us get so that we cannot receive these revelations the Lord will take us out of the way and put someone in our places who can. I am here to-day, on borrowed time, I may say. I would have been in the spirit world to-day, mingling with the spirits in the presence of God, had it not been for the cry of this people for my life when I lay at the gates of death a year ago. I have been preserved by the power of God. How long I shall live I do not know. It does not make any difference to me. But while I do live I want to do my duty. I want the Latter-day Saints to do their duty. Here is the Holy Priesthood in these mountains. Their responsibility is great and mighty. The eyes of God and all the holy prophets are watching over us. This is the great dispensation that has been spoken of ever since the world began. We are gathered together in these mountains of Israel by the power and commandment of God. We are doing the work of God. This is not our home, as far as mortality is concerned. We shall soon pass away. But while here let us fill our mission. I want to say to Brother L. Snow, Brother M. W. Merrill, Brother J. D. T. McAllister and Brother D. H. Cannon, and all associated with you, carry these things before the Lord and see for yourselves. If you are not satisfied with this order of things, go and ask the Lord about it, and the Holy Ghost will reveal to you the truth of these principles.

 

This is all I ought to say at this time perhaps upon this subject. I am glad to meet with you. I have had a great anxiety over this matter. I have had a great desire that I might live to deliver these principles to the Latter-day Saints, for they are true. They are one step forward in the work of the ministry and in the work of the endowments in these temples of our God. When you get to the last man in the lineage, as I said before, we will adopt that man to the Prophet Joseph, and then the Prophet Joseph will take care of himself with regard to where he goes. A man may say, "I am an Apostle, or I am a High Priest, or I am an Elder in Israel, and if I am adopted to my father, will it take any honor from me?" I would say not. If Joseph Smith was sealed to his father, with whom many of you were acquainted, what effect will that have upon his exaltation and glory? None at all. Joseph Smith will hold the keys of this dispensation to the endless ages of eternity. It is the greatest dispensation God ever gave to man, and he was ordained before the world was to stand in the flesh and organize this work. He was martyred for the word of God and testimony of Jesus, and when he comes in the clouds of heaven he will wear a martyr's crown. ****Those of you who stand here--I do not care whether you are Apostles or what you are--by honoring your fathers you will not take any honor from your heads; you will hold the keys of the salvation of your father's house, as Joseph Smith does. You will lose nothing by honoring your fathers and redeeming your dead. It is a glorious work…..

The purple (blue and purple chosen for easy reading while not using red because that should be reserved for mods) sections in particular makes me wonder the implications for the polyandrous sealings:

What business have I to take away the rights of the lineage of any man? What right has any man to do this?

 

Would not sealing the wife to Joseph instead of her husband take away the rights of lineage for that man? His children would no longer be his children. What right has any man to do that, even the prophets (since they were involved in the incorrect application of the law of adoption so that Pres. Woodruff was scolding them as well, they were not exempt from that question). It seems to me pretty clear that given the latter further revelation about sealing that there is a big possibility that Joseph did not understand the process correctly since he was the one who started sealing others to him and to each other and President Woodruff received a revelation to correct him. Not to dispense with all sealings, but to ensure that people were being sealed to the correct individuals in their families. If fathers and mothers, then why not husbands and wives?

 

When a man receives the endowments, adopt him to his father; not to Wilford Woodruff, nor to any other man outside the lineage of his fathers

 

Cannot the same question more or less be asked for a woman? Maybe rewritten as 'When a woman receives the endowments, seal her to her husband; not to Joseph Smith, not to any other man outside of her family.  

 

She comes to the temple and she wants to be sealed to her husband, who was a good man. The feeling has been to deny this and to say, "No, he was not in the Church, and you cannot be sealed to your husband." Many a woman's heart has ached because of this, and as a servant of God I have broken that chain a good while ago. I have laid before every woman this principle and let her have her choice. Why deprive a woman of being sealed to her husband because he never heard the Gospel? What do any of us know with regard to him?

This eliminates previously perceived need for a woman to be sealed to a priesthood holder since now women could be sealed to husbands after their death. That rationale when used for polyandrous sealings was therefore incorrect. I am not suggesting that those involved were sinful any more than those involved in the Law of Adoption, rather they were acting with the light they had, now we know some of the greater light available and so can see where they erred.

 

Those of you who stand here--I do not care whether you are Apostles or what you are--by honoring your fathers you will not take any honor from your heads; you will hold the keys of the salvation of your father's house, as Joseph Smith does. You will lose nothing by honoring your fathers and redeeming your dead.

 

So they had the misunderstanding that they would gain greater honor being sealed to Joseph Smith than their own fathers and they were corrected by the prophet, no honor would be taken from them.  Could not the idea that the greater the number of wives and children the greater the honor they had be as equally misguided?  And if so, then plural marriage is not if it exists in the eternities about dominions and glory, but only about family and being with the ones you love for eternity….sounds pretty much like how we teach it today…maybe not watered down as some claim, but the result of continuing revelation.

Edited October 24, 2014 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

Good article Calmoriah. I was looking for that quote from WW. Thanks!

[rockpond]

You noted you didn't think my definition of Damnation jived with Brigham's sermon. I provided the LDS Bible Dictionary which states damnation can come in degrees, and indeed reflects Brigham's statements about achieving glory, but falling short of all the blessings we can have.

Not even trying to be condescending here. Even though I've got a decade on you and was probably a High Priest when you were in the Aaronic Priesthood. Relax its not a contest. I was really trying to answer your line of inquiry.

Kevin,

You appear to have edited your original comment so maybe you realized that I didn't intend to sound hostile. I apologize if it came off that way. I shouldn't have even been responding that late at night.

I already understood and agreed with you on the bible definition of damnation. I also thought that Brigham Young might not have chosen to put it in those terms at the time of his discourse. But now I agree with your point that maybe he was teaching that all who didn't practice polygamy would be damned.

Regarding your other post last night, I do see it as an Abrahamic type sacrifice by the women and children, but not so much by BY.

[KevinG]

Kevin,

You appear to have edited your original comment so maybe you realized that I didn't intend to sound hostile. I apologize if it came off that way. I shouldn't have even been responding that late at night.

I already understood and agreed with you on the bible definition of damnation. I also thought that Brigham Young might not have chosen to put it in those terms at the time of his discourse. But now I agree with your point that maybe he was teaching that all who didn't practice polygamy would be damned.

Regarding your other post last night, I do see it as an Abrahamic type sacrifice by the women and children, but not so much by BY.

 

I had responded hastily to you calling me "bud" and perceived you were scolding me, and decided it would be better to edit those words than be contentious.  If you saw them before the edit I'm sorry.  Another reason you will find most of my posts edited is that I'm writing from an Ipad, and my phat phingers on the keyboard keep dropping weird and mysterious spellings into my statements.  I don't see them until after I post and go back to fix what I catch.

 

Brigham's position was not an easy one, and he did say at one point he was jealous of a corpse in a hearse over the issue.  But we cannot know his mind for we are not him.  I try to imagine myself having to be responsible for the physical, emotional. and spiritual well being of multiple families and it is not the image of fun or glory to me.  In fact it was probably lonely in many ways.

 

Why do you think Joseph and Brigham instituted the principle?  Do you think it was inspired or a mistake?

Edited October 24, 2014 by KevinG

[rockpond]

I had responded hastily to you calling me "bud" and perceived you were scolding me, and decided it would be better to edit those words than be contentious. If you saw them before the edit I'm sorry. Another reason you will find most of my posts edited is that I'm writing from an Ipad, and my phat phingers on the keyboard keep dropping weird and mysterious spellings into my statements. I don't see them until after I post and go back to fix what I catch.

Brigham's position was not an easy one, and he did say at one point he was jealous of a corpse in a hearse over the issue. But we cannot know his mind for we are not him. I try to imagine myself having to be responsible for the physical, emotional. and spiritual well being of multiple families and it is not the image of fun or glory to me. In fact it was probably lonely in many ways.

Why do you think Joseph and Brigham instituted the principle? Do you think it was inspired or a mistake?

Clearly my intended use of "bud" failed, wasn't meant to sound scolding.

I've read that comment by Brigham before and I agree with you (and him), I can't imagine being responsible for that many wives and children. It would be absolutely nothing like family as we live today.

But then that leaves me sitting with the question: why take on 55 wives? Did he feel specifically directed to marry that many? What would be the benefit the Lord was going for in asking that many women and children to make such a sacrifice (that couldn't be achieved while allowing those kids to be raised with a full time dad?

To your last question: I believe that Joseph believed he was supposed to restore biblical polygamy. And I believe that Brigham believed what he taught about it was from God. But I also believe that it was a mistake and that's why the Lord corrected it.

[JLHPROF]

To your last question: I believe that Joseph believed he was supposed to restore biblical polygamy. And I believe that Brigham believed what he taught about it was from God. But I also believe that it was a mistake and that's why the Lord corrected it.

 

I don't believe there is any evidence to categorize plural marriage as a mistake.  (Other than people's distaste for it).

[KevinG]

Clearly my intended use of "bud" failed, wasn't meant to sound scolding.

I've read that comment by Brigham before and I agree with you (and him), I can't imagine being responsible for that many wives and children. It would be absolutely nothing like family as we live today.

But then that leaves me sitting with the question: why take on 55 wives? Did he feel specifically directed to marry that many? What would be the benefit the Lord was going for in asking that many women and children to make such a sacrifice (that couldn't be achieved while allowing those kids to be raised with a full time dad?

To your last question: I believe that Joseph believed he was supposed to restore biblical polygamy. And I believe that Brigham believed what he taught about it was from God. But I also believe that it was a mistake and that's why the Lord corrected it.

 

No harm.  I should grow a thicker skin when deciding to wade into sensitive issues online.  

 

We disagree, but I cannot fault your logic.  

 

With all of the stories I read about Brigham, some marriages were for Joseph (sealed to him for eternity), some were to care for women who were past childbearing years, some were political (his last wife's family begged him to take her on in his old age), and some were ???

 

Even if you believe like me the principle is inspired and scriptural, the process of finding a match in a spouse is no less messy than it is with monogamy today.  

[KevinG]

I don't believe there is any evidence to categorize plural marriage as a mistake.  (Other than people's distaste for it).

 

I agree with you, but see why people have a hard time wrapping their brains around it in the 21st century.  

 

Of course most of the "reasons" for banning polygamy I hear would easily condemn the whole practice of monogamous marriage.  (Jealousy, failed marriages, abuse, scarce resources for children, divorce, unhappy spouses...)  

 

In functional polygamous households (yes they exist) there are more options for those not thrilled about the idea of being a housewife than there are in monogamous families who rear children.  With my very large family we found that rather than there being less attention for the children, they were able to form a very strong support network, and we still managed to take time to know and support each one as an individual.  It takes a lot of work, but family size does not dictate how functional the relationships are, or how nurtured a child is.  They don't get spoiled for material goods that's for sure.  

 

Some of the most selfish, insufferable brats I've had the misfortune to supervise as a scout leader or teacher, had two parents with lots of material wealth and all the time in the world to devote to each other.  But they chose to use their wealth to keep busy and avoid dealing with each other intimately (ex. I can't stand being stuck in the house with you let's go to an amusement park or play video games).

 

My wife often notes the pain and loneliness of her single or divorced friends.  She says if they don't find a righteous man to claim them I will be on the hook to take care of them in the next life.  In the mean time, the boys and I do a lot of yard work and handyman jobs for her friends.  We even go on triple dates sometimes.  But those are awkward because I'm always the third wheel.  :-)  

 

It is partly in jest that she threatens to marry off her friends to me in the millennium, and in moments of clarity she admits sharing certain parts of our life would be very hard, and involve suppressing any jealous or selfish feelings, but in the end there is a very serious point to her statements.  These Saintly and righteous women deserve not just any old husband, but to be part of a righteous priesthood lineage, to be honored by their husband as she is.  And if no one else will stand up and be worthy of them, she will insist that I repent and take that responsibility.

 

I am reaching the point in my life where my sexuality is more in principle than action (don't laugh it will happen to you young bucks too), and the whole dynamic of romance, fealty, friendship and marriage takes on a new, but rich and rewarding flavor.  As romance blooms with the heart and head more than the glands, the idea of a family as extended tribe becomes less "icky" and more attractive from a standpoint of having many loving adults supporting each other.  I do it without sex or marriage, but the tenderness, feelings of brotherly love, and blessings of a large support group are wonderful.  And women are far more interesting in groups than men are.  Sorry guys but bowling, belching and bros only goes so far.

 

So in the next life I'm either going to be reassigned as a girlfriend, or a husband.  I can live with either.  What I cannot live with is my sisters going without all the blessings they are entitled to.

 

[now climbing down from my soapbox and returning the mic to its stand...]

Edited October 24, 2014 by KevinG

[Tacenda]

I agree with you, but see why people have a hard time wrapping their brains around it in the 21st century.  

 

Of course most of the "reasons" for banning polygamy I hear would easily condemn the whole practice of monogamous marriage.  (Jealousy, failed marriages, abuse, scarce resources for children, divorce, unhappy spouses...)  

 

In functional polygamous households (yes they exist) there are more options for those not thrilled about the idea of being a housewife than there are in monogamous families who rear children.  With my very large family we found that rather than there being less attention for the children, they were able to form a very strong support network, and we still managed to take time to know and support each one as an individual.  It takes a lot of work, but family size does not dictate how functional the relationships are, or how nurtured a child is.  They don't get spoiled for material goods that's for sure.  

 

Some of the most selfish, insufferable brats I've had the misfortune to supervise as a scout leader or teacher, had two parents with lots of material wealth and all the time in the world to devote to each other.  But they chose to use their wealth to keep busy and avoid dealing with each other intimately (ex. I can't stand being stuck in the house with you let's go to an amusement park or play video games).

 

My wife often notes the pain and loneliness of her single or divorced friends.  She says if they don't find a righteous man to claim them I will be on the hook to take care of them in the next life.  In the mean time, the boys and I do a lot of yard work and handyman jobs for her friends.  We even go on triple dates sometimes.  But those are awkward because I'm always the third wheel.  :-)  

 

It is partly in jest that she threatens to marry off her friends to me in the millennium, and in moments of clarity she admits sharing certain parts of our life would be very hard, and involve suppressing any jealous or selfish feelings, but in the end there is a very serious point to her statements.  These Saintly and righteous women deserve not just any old husband, but to be part of a righteous priesthood lineage, to be honored by their husband as she is.  And if no one else will stand up and be worthy of them, she will insist that I repent and take that responsibility.

 

I am reaching the point in my life where my sexuality is more in principle than action (don't laugh it will happen to you young bucks too), and the whole dynamic of romance, fealty, friendship and marriage takes on a new, but rich and rewarding flavor.  As romance blooms with the heart and head more than the glands, the idea of a family as extended tribe becomes less "icky" and more attractive from a standpoint of having many loving adults supporting each other.  I do it without sex or marriage, but the tenderness, feelings of brotherly love, and blessings of a large support group are wonderful.  And women are far more interesting in groups than men are.  Sorry guys but bowling, belching and bros only goes so far.

 

So in the next life I'm either going to be reassigned as a girlfriend, or a husband.  I can live with either.  What I cannot live with is my sisters going without all the blessings they are entitled to.

 

[now climbing down from my soapbox and returning the mic to its stand...]

 I'll clap for that soapbox!  And I sometimes think being around men vs. being around women, can be refreshing.  They just care about the goal, the game or activity.  Where we women can get caught in the vicious cycle of worrying about the who, the where, the what, the why.  Which can stall us, where the men, are there before you know it.  But it's not our faults, it's all the preparing involved just to go out the door! 

[KevinG]

 I'll clap for that soapbox!  And I sometimes think being around men vs. being around women, can be refreshing.  They just care about the goal, the game or activity.  Where we women can get caught in the vicious cycle of worrying about the who, the where, the what, the why.  Which can stall us, where the men, are there before you know it.  But it's not our faults, it's all the preparing involved just to go out the door! 

 

We would be lost without you!  Likely living in a hovel made of used pizza boxes and soda cans.

[rockpond]

I don't believe there is any evidence to categorize plural marriage as a mistake.  (Other than people's distaste for it).

 

I don't have a distaste for it.  I don't think that it should be illegal and I think the recent court decision in Utah is a victory for religious freedom.

 

You really can't see any evidence for polygamy being a mistake?  Nothing at all in our history?

[rockpond]

Even if you believe like me the principle is inspired and scriptural, the process of finding a match in a spouse is no less messy than it is with monogamy today.  

 

Well, in the "smaller" versions of polygamy, I would agree and actually suggest that it's even more messy since you have to find someone that is a fit for both you and your previous spouses.

 

However, with the way Brigham practiced polygamy, wherein you only have an average of one week per year to spend with each wife, it seems like you could put up with a lot more in the way of differences.

[JLHPROF]

I don't have a distaste for it.  I don't think that it should be illegal and I think the recent court decision in Utah is a victory for religious freedom.

 

You really can't see any evidence for polygamy being a mistake?  Nothing at all in our history?

 

Nope.  Only in man's weakness living it (kind of the point to overcome) and other mens foolishness fighting it.

[Teancum]

You having answers from God that the first four prophets of this dispensation did not is highly dubious.

 

 

That is your view.  I am doubtful the first four prophets got it right on this as well.  The Church seems to think these days they missed the boat on the priesthood ban. Why not polygamy?  And oh by the way the first four prophets said the Church would never give up polygamy and the last of the four who also said it capitulated. Not a good track record really.