Polygamy Is Not The Issue. The Devil Is In The Details

[erdoch]

I agree that these are tough matters. It is something I am processing too as I recently read Hales' first volume - and look forward to reading his second and third volumes when those are republished. After which I will probably read Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness". 

 

And I think that if Brian Hales is right and Emma did not know about polygamy until 1843 - after Joseph had married several wives, at least some of whom he had sexual relations with - then I find it very hard to not see Joseph as sinning against Emma. But I think one can believe both in some amount of inspiration being behind polygamy and in human error being present in Joseph and Brigham carrying it out.

 

One perspective that gives me (some amount of) peace about polygamy is viewing it in terms of the more universal salvation that the Gospel brings. Through Joseph Smith we learn of baptisms for the dead and degrees of glory - doctrines that make salvation much more universally accessible than traditional Christianity provides for. I see polygamy in a similar way. With most societies throughout history allowing for polygamy, I think the practice of polygamy in the restored church sends a message that people who have married polygamously throughout history also have salvation available to them. The ordinances are there, after all, to seal and exalt and purify the relationships of this life and to make them eternal. 

[The Nehor]

If the way God implemented polygamy counts as coercion then God is coercive. God is always telling us to do or not do certain things and then attaches promises to them. I would not call them threats but they could easily be seen as such.

Live the gospel or lose your family.

Live up to your covenants or expect at least a stint in hell.

That is what God does. He balances the "woes" with "blessings" for obedience but that does not make the "woes" less frightening.

[guerreiro9]

Had those women been married instead to other active worthy single LDS men, would it not have produced righteous seed?

 

That only works if there are the same number of "active worthy single LDS" men and women.  I don't have any numbers for the 1800s, but if it was anything like today there were probably more "active worthy single LDS" women than men.

 

Every "active worthy single LDS" man has at least a mathematically possibility to marry an "active worthy single LDS" woman.  The reverse is not the case unless you practice polygamy.

 

-guerreiro9

Edited November 10, 2014 by guerreiro9

[Calm]

I would have to agree that there are more women in the Celestial than men since plural marriage is a doctrine of the Church and the Church has not undone or apologized for the plural sealings it performs now and has performed in the past.

 

I don't see any way around it.  One could argue about the numbers of children who have died before the age of accountability or young men who have died in wars, but using those to equal things out means more plural marriage or those already sealed to be unsealed and given to another.

 

I am not for or against any outcome that turns out to be the real one; everyone monogamous, or everyone plural, or some plural and some monogamous.

Women are being sealed to all their husbands too.  Since women live longer than men, overall that means it is more likely that women have more husbands than men have wives.

[BCSpace]

Women are being sealed to all their husbands too.  Since women live longer than men, overall that means it is more likely that women have more husbands than men have wives.

 

A possibility though if I had to guess, I'd say it's men who do more remarrying.

[Calm]

Now, for sure.  But in the past, when women couldn't survive without a man?

[BCSpace]

Couldn't say.  And then there is the ancient Church. Any evidence of women being sealed to multiple husbands? And what do we know of the choices, if a choice is allowed, as to which they will stay sealed to if not all of them?

 

What about the overall makeup of those spirits not cast out of heaven? Since we don't know when the spirit enters the body, we can't look to birth rates for males and females for a reasonable guess.

Edited November 10, 2014 by BCSpace

[Grudunza]

Could you please cite some examples of him preaching against polygamy. I'm not aware of them, but perhaps I'm just not well versed on the subject.

There are several, but here's one, just a month or so before his martyrdom...

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one"—Joseph Smith (LDS History of the Church 6:411)

There's this from T&S 1842: "We are charged with advocating a plurality of wives...now this is as false as the many other ridiculous charges which are brought against us."

Also noteable is the original text of D&C 101 (removed when 132 was added)...

“Inasmuch as this church has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband.”

Edited November 10, 2014 by Grudunza

[mfbukowski]

I struggle with that as I just don't buy that God gave women a salvific advantage over men.

I strongly suggest that you, with the help of a good sister, in the temple, carefully compare the initiatory rites for women with those for men.

 

It is crystal clear that indeed women are far more "blessed" than men.  No question about it.

 

This is incredibly important theologically, yet for some reason it is widely not known simply because the men stay on one side of the temple and the women stay on the other, and nobody memorizes the ordinances and husbands and wives don't compare the words spoken.

 

The presumption is the words on both sides are the same- but they are not.

 

I am continually flabbergasted that this is virtually unknown

 

Also notice historical accounts that the washing of the feet as an ordinance was administered historically by WOMEN upon their own husbands.

 

This ordinance presumes that women are as the administrators of the ordinance, spiritually "above" their husbands and more "clean".

 

The presumption implicit is that the .....  lets just say the communal sins of our time- so as not to quote temple wording-  are retained by men but not by women.

 

I believe that is because it is men who are commonly involved in war and other "unclean" activities.   This is a theologically crucial crucial point that everyone seems to miss which has implications for women and the priesthood, same sex marriage and other family issues- yet no one seems to know about it.

 

Boggles my mind.

Edited November 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I am going to bed and don't feel like looking this up, so this is the first site I found that discusses this.

I can't vouch for the site- but I recognize all the quotes as things I have read before. Compare this to all I said above.

[this is an anti mormon site - mods]

[cinepro]

If God commanded me to sacrifice my son, I would say " Uh, NO ". If God commanded me to build a big boat because it was going to rain... a lot! , I would likely say " Can't I just climb yonder hill ? " If God told me to take another wife... (well, there have been times)... excuse me, I would say," One is plenty thanks."

That is why I am where I am spiritually.

 

Not to digress, but I have to admit that one of my favorite things about the "limited flood" theories is the idea of Noah building the ark and collecting breeding pairs of animals from all over, then having it rain and the ark raises 20 feet off the ground and floats around, while the hillsides in the nearby mountains (and parts of the earth beyond the flood plain) remain habitable and the animals continue living.  It makes a previously dramatic story into a farce.   

 

Now back to the discussion on polygamy.

[mormonnewb]

A troubling aspect to me that you didn't mention is that Joseph repeatedly and strongly preached against polygamy. I can accept him as a PSR, regardless, but "liar/hypocrite" is a pretty bad label for a religious leader whose integrity is under intense scrutiny. I suppose the possibility that lets me move past that, to some extent, is that he was commanded to lie about it and preach against it, for some reason (e.g., to protect those practicing it).

I know there are conspiracists who claim that JS never practiced polygamy, and that BY and others put that on him after the fact to justify their practice of it. There are a few interesting aspects to that theory, and it would certainly make sense of Joseph's objections to polygamy... but I have a big problem accepting that with the overwhelming evidence that JS did practice polygamy.

I agree that the lying is the most problematic part for me. JS was courageous enough to come forth with the BOM, vicarious ordinances, the Great Apostasy and the Restoration of the priesthood. He wasn't a man who shrank away from speaking "hard truths." And while I can understand the concept of not casting pearls before swine, I see nothing in scripture to support lying to the swine, particularly when some of those "swine" were faithful members of the Church. These people, who sacrificed everything to follow their beloved prophet, DESERVED the truth. They deserved to not be set "adrift" from the priesthood because they actually believed JS' own words and rejected the teachings of BY.

So if the choice is between believing that HF chose to discard these precious saints or that JS erred, I choose the latter every time. Of course, I'm completely comfortable with following an imperfect prophet, so it isnt a deal breaker for me.

Edited November 10, 2014 by mormonnewb

[cinepro]

You are right, Polygamy is not the issue. The issue with JS and the whole restoration is the BOM. If it is what he said it was, (I'm convinced it is), than the rest of this is just a sideshow, and we will get all the details in the next life. If JS made up the BOM, then the details of polygamy's practice and inception are irrevelant, since he was not a prophet and instituted the practice on his own.

 

The existence of the FLDS (and other restoration branches) would indicate that the issue is slightly more nuanced than that.

[The Nehor]

Not to digress, but I have to admit that one of my favorite things about the "limited flood" theories is the idea of Noah building the ark and collecting breeding pairs of animals from all over, then having it rain and the ark raises 20 feet off the ground and floats around, while the hillsides in the nearby mountains (and parts of the earth beyond the flood plain) remain habitable and the animals continue living.  It makes a previously dramatic story into a farce.   

 

Now back to the discussion on polygamy.

 

It makes more sense if you take the description of animals to refer to the breeding stock of his herds so that he could rebuild them once he was done as opposed to saving elephants and grasshoppers.

[The Nehor]

So if the choice is between believing that HF chose to discard these precious saints or that JS erred, I choose the latter every time. Of course, I'm completely comfortable with following an imperfect prophet, so it isnt a deal breaker for me.

 

False dichotomy.

[mormonnewb]

False dichotomy.

 

I have been guilty of creating false dichotomies in the past, so please help me out with the correct dichotomy in this instance.

 

The "faithful" argument is that HF commanded (or at least, found acceptable) JS' lying to the saints and others about polygamy.  Some of these

"deceived" saints believed JS and could never accept that he had taught/practiced polygamy.  For this reason (and perhaps, a few others), they split off from the LDS church, which I think we believe is the "one true church" with the holy priesthood of God.  So, unless I understand correctly, these particular Mormons (which included Emma and JS' own sons) were cut off from the benefits of the priesthood because they actually took the Prophet at his word.

 

What am I missing here?  Were these believing saints somehow unrighteous because they should have known that the man of God was LYING to them?  Because in regards to these people, I'm failing to see where they erred.  So if they didn't err, then JS was in error or the Lord found it acceptable to "sacrifice" those saints for the greater good.  Or am I missing a third option here?

[KevinG]

There are many reasons that these "issues" do not negate the possibility that polygamy was instituted by God.

We are not perfect in our implementation of doctrines, and we learn line by line. After reading Bushmans thorough account, I was left with the impression Joseph struggled to balance his traditional duties with a very difficult revelation.

The so called "coercion" was not. These Saints were given the option of rejecting the principle, but we're told if they rejected it it would not be offered again. Brigham underscored this when he chastised the men who did not obey the call in Utah for worldly reasons, and he told them if they didn't accept it blessings would be lost, and it would not be offered again in the next life. Many chose not to practice it and yet there was no earthly punishment or separation from the church when thy did not.

Abrahams sacrifice is a perfect model of what the Saints were asked. Neither resulted in more children, but both resulted in righteous and strong leadership in future generations. I'm not privy to all the details and neither is anyone but those asked to live it. However, I'm loathe to criticize the prophets and pioneers from 100 years later.

[cdowis]

There are several, but here's one, just a month or so before his martyrdom...

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one"—Joseph Smith (LDS History of the Church 6:411)

 

Are you familiar with Abraham's statement that Sarah was his sister (rather than his wife)?  The Lord told him to say this because they would have killed Abraham, in order to save his life.  BY told John Taylor, while he was on a special mission in Europe, to deny that the church was practicing polygamy (following JS example).  Taylor disagree with Brigham but followed his counsel. 

 

JS knew that the enemies of the church would have inflamed the general populace and used this as a pretext to destroy the church.

There's this from T&S 1842: "We are charged with advocating a plurality of wives...now this is as false as the many other ridiculous charges which are brought against us."

 

Note how carefully this is stated -- "advocating".  This was only to be practiced under very restricted conditions,  under the authority of those who held the keys of the priesthood, and in no way was the church "advocating" polygamy to the world at large.

 

Also noteable is the original text of D&C 101 (removed when 132 was added)...

“Inasmuch as this church has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband.”

 

May I suggest that you study the history behind this section.  You are obviously unacquainted with the history of this section of the D&C.  You will  discover it was written without the knowledge or approval of JS.

 

I strongly suggest that you dig a little deeper into the history of the church before quoting statements out of historical context.

Edited November 10, 2014 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

1: choices...analyze what historical data we have with rational thought. Ask if I would give anyone else a pass who behaved like Joseph did in regards to polygamy.

2: yes I think we have plenty of informations to make a conclusion about Joseph Smith and polygamy.

3: re a revelation...well it depends on how you define it. But why is a revelation required?

4: again why is a revelation required to conclude he may have lied about the angel. Do you seek a revelation to determine if others who claim God told them to take on additonal wives are telling the truth?

 

How can one learn any spiritual claim is true or not except through spiritual means??? Can you speak for God and say that Joseph was not a prophet? Can you speak for God and say that He did not send an angel with a flaming sword to threaten to literally cut Joseph off if he did not obey? Can you speak for God and tell us that He was not the source of D&C section 132? Can you speak for God on anything?

 

Joseph's first vision and his call as a prophet, the angel and a sword thing, Section 132, were all spiritual events with no other witnesses around. In order to ascertain whether they actually happened would require something or someone with a direct knowledge of the events. We have Joseph's word. And for a confirmation or rejection, we have to get it from another witness. We do not have enough information on our own to make that determination.

 

You may speak for yourself, only. And what you think or speak may not be in line with what God thinks and has spoken.

 

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. He restored plural marriage to the earth by direct revelation and commandment. Plural Marriage is an eternal principle and law.

All other questions, history, and doctrinal issues are our own and our own hangups to deal with. The issues are with us, not with the restoration of this law. It's just like Consecration.

[Glenn101]

If God commanded me to sacrifice my son, I would say " Uh, NO ". If God commanded me to build a big boat because it was going to rain... a lot! , I would likely say " Can't I just climb yonder hill ? " If God told me to take another wife... (well, there have been times)... excuse me, I would say," One is plenty thanks."

That is why I am where I am spiritually.

 

You know, I think that if an angel with a flaming sword were to stand in front of you and threaten to cut you off, rather literally, if you did not take second wife, you just may have some second thoughts!?!?

 

And if God, Himself stood before you and gave you a commandment to do this or that thing, I don't think that the Bill Cosby in you would come out. 

 

I gather that none of us posting here have had such an experience. 

 

Glenn

[rodheadlee]

Does anyone really think an age difference of 10, 20 or even 30 years will make a difference in eternity? What if a guy wanted to marry a woman much older than him, would you look upon this in the same way when a dirty old man wants to marry a young woman?

[KevinG]

If you throw out Joseph's claims, you also have to throw out Brigham's, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant, as being in on the conspiracy or duped.  Not to mention most of the Apostles and Elders for the first two thirds of the history of the church. 

 

I just don't see how a faithful Latter-day Saint can discount the principle and reconcile that with having living prophets and apostles guided by God.

[KevinG]

Does anyone really think an age difference of 10, 20 or even 30 years will make a difference in eternity? What if a guy wanted to marry a woman much older than him, would you look upon this in the same way when a dirty old man wants to marry a young woman?

 

I don't.  And on top of that I think far too many people today weigh sex, physical attraction and other carnal needs too heavily when considering an eternal partner.  That is the source of a lot of discomfort when contemplating what the early Saints covenanted to do.

[Grudunza]

In reply to cdowis... Re: D&C 101. From Fairmormon: "The available evidence suggests that Joseph Smith supported its publication

While some have suggested that the article was published against Joseph's wishes or without his knowledge, the available evidence suggests that he supported its publication."

It remained in the D&C for nine years until Joseph's death (and for decades thereafter). Are there references to him opposing it or wanting it removed? He may not have specifically written it, but there's a tacit endorsement, at least.

I already said earlier that a reason to lie about polygamy to protect the Saints may have been justified. It's still a lie or deception, though, which makes it a bit difficult to process. And your suggestion that the use of the word "advocating" is a deliberate or careful obfuscation may indeed be the case, but it's still obfuscation.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Grudunza