Learning About Polygamy: "it's Like Learning Evolution Is True"

[Uncle Dale]

Every now and then some well-meaning, entirely pious and exemplary

guy or gal comes out of their college geology or anthropology class,

having changed their minds about the age of the world, Noah's flood,

the notion of natural selection, etc. It may be a shock to them. They may

wonder whether attending the Foursquare, Two-Seeds-in-the-Spirit

First Church of John Calvin is really their best choice in life.

 

If only things had been different. If only Pastor Blazes had told the

congregation that the world may be older than we think -- or if Rev.

Sulphur had mentioned there were good Christians who disagreed

with the notion that dinosaurs, Adam and Eve all lived together.

 

If only...

 

 

So -- you say -- what's all of that got to do with latter-day polygamy?

 

Bear with me, for a couple of paragraphs, and pretend you're back

in the Nauvoo City Council meeting room in the Spring of 1844.

 

"Brethren -- I must call your attention to a matter of importance -- to a

growing concern The Lord has communicated...

 

"We all know that the Law brothers have set up a printing press and

will be issuing a newspaper, which they claim tells "the truth" about this

city and this Church. I'll say to you right now, they have very little "truth"

to tell, and much to print that will test the faith of our members. But, in

the case of our family situations, we must get out ahead of these

apostates and say some things in public concerning the Patriarchal

Order of Marriage.

 

"Yes, I know it will be difficult. And, yes, I know that Hyrum and I have

told you to say nothing of these sacred blessings -- to the Gentiles or

to those not ready to hear of them. But we must preserve our integrity

and we must strive to increase righteousness, at all costs.

 

"So, in the next few days, I'll be addressing the Anointed Quorum, and

the Council of Fifty, and the Relief Society -- and explaining why we

will now have to admit in public what we have heretofore kept private.

 

"In truth, we do NOT practice polygamy. The dictionaries and the law

books of the Gentiles present an entirely different meaning for that

word, and for bigamy, than the instruction we have received from

On High. We work to restore the Ancient Order of Things, and not to

please the law-makers over in Springfield.

 

"Nevertheless, because of what Bennet's book says, and the Warsaw

Signal, and this new paper they will call "The Expositor," it is for the

best that we at least inform members of the Church of these things;

and that we avoid dishonesty in responding to the Gentiles.

 

"It will be a hard thing. In a vision, given recently over on the Iowa shore,

I saw the Saints making a great migration to the tops of the Rocky Mountains.

That exodus will be coming sooner than any of you imagine. But it will save

the Church from its enemies, and protect our wives from their wrath.

 

"Alas! I sorrow in not having seen my own family moving westward in

the Iowa vision! It pains me to be led like a lamb to the slaughter, and

know that my sacrifice will not be understood by the Elect Lady and

our children. But, fear not, brethren -- The Lord will lead us, and one

yet unborn will one day take my place at your head.

 

"Be steadfast. Be forthright. Be honest. Our posterity will one day look

back upon this very meeting and rejoice in our righteous decisions."

 

UD

Edited January 29, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[mfbukowski]

Well it's an interesting idea, if that had happened.

 

There is so much we will never know that did happen, might have happened, or should have happened,  Surely that hypothetical statement would have altered church history in a major way.

 

But there ARE parallels with evolution here, but the church has always had a problem reconciling literalism in reading scripture with what is sometimes taught, and sometimes avoided at BYU.  I think the church is not ready to set the BYU professors free, and that is really the source of all this tension with the Maxwell Institute etc.

 

But the old guard is just that- old.  They will not be around forever.  And they DO teach evolution at BYU, so that is step in the right direction.

 

What is really needed is for the members of the church to see how Mormon doctrine can be "translated" into secularism because the fact of the matter is that secularists are looking for a secular religion, and what we teach parallels humanism quite nicely.

 

The fact is that we worship "The Ideal Human", believe that God himself lives according to what we would call "family values" in a "Social Trinity" and that the human family is the nucleus of civilization.  We believe that one day the world will live in peace in a communal society, and we believe that humans organize "worlds" by defining them into existence. (In the beginning was The Word...who... created all that was created....  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night, etc.)

 

Oddly, perhaps, as a humanist myself, this is why I joined the church, but I firmly believe that if we could pitch our message to secularism, there are many who would see it as I do.

 

But evolution and polygamy?  meh.  A good humanist would not care about either, and neither should we.

[Thinking]

Joseph Smith might not have been murdered because the Nauvoo Expositor might not have been destroyed. He then might have lived to be 85...

[Uncle Dale]

Joseph Smith might not have been murdered because the Nauvoo Expositor might not have been destroyed. He then might have lived to be 85...

 

I suppose that the Expositor would still have been shut down --

had the Nauvoo City Council not attempted to act sumultaneously

as a judicial body -- a legal process could probably have been

obtained which would not have involved destroying the press

and the newspaper owners' property.

 

Hindsight is generally 20/20 -- and Smith's legal counsel probably

pointed this out -- after the fact -- when it was too late.

 

However, shutting down the Expositor by court order would have

simply forced it out of town. The Laws, Foster, and their associates

would probably have moved the press over to Montrose or some

other nearby city. Physical destruction of the newspaper and its

equipment precluded such any such quick resurrection, however.

 

What is puzzling is why the Mormon leadership at that point did

not at least tacitly inform the general membership of plural marriage.

It had become an open secret, and was being reported and discussed

in western Illinois newspapers. A simple statement from "headquarters,"

admitting that those reports were "partly true," might have preserved

a modicum of secrecy, while still pre-empting the Expostor's primary

reason for publication.

 

Probably we'll never know all of the calculations which went into the

quick (overly hasty?) descision to physically destroy the Expositor.

 

UD

Edited January 30, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[theplains]

Maybe the learning about polygamy is more of a shock to non-US Mormons.  We'll see if the LDS

Church starts putting this into foreign language versions of the Ensign magazine or whether they

will have to hear about it second-hand.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Uncle Dale]

Maybe the learning about polygamy is more of a shock to non-US Mormons.  We'll see if the LDS

Church starts putting this into foreign language versions of the Ensign magazine or whether they

will have to hear about it second-hand.

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

My own LDS ancestors (yes, I had a couple of them) embarked at Liverpool a

few months before the Church in Utah officially admitted polygamy had long

been one of its doctrines.

 

The English and Welsh converts on the emigrant ship were gathered together

on deck, and informed of the soon-to-be-revealed doctrine after the vessel

had cleared sight of land. However, just before leaving the Irish Sea, it came

close enough to shore that one young couple reportedly jumped ship. Whether

they survived the swim to Scotland's coast in frigid waters, was never known.

 

Once polygamy was admitted to the British Saints, the conversion and retention

rate in the isles dropped markedly and stayed low for years.

 

I'd guess, that based upon past experience, the Church leadership would

exercise some caution in publicizing the old polygamy in modern, active mission

fields. Might go over well in some parts of Africa and South Asia, however.

 

UD

[Stargazer]

I had to laugh at this one.  It happens that I believe that evolution is a fact. 

 

Polygamy hasn't affected me negatively one little bit.  I started out a convert who was well aware of that aspect of LDS history.  The fact that polygamy was a major characteristic of many marriages in the Old Testament (for thousands of years) made it clear that "the restoration of all things" would require it.  It seemed completely within the realm of a logical consequence.

 

If the Lord brought it back then I would be OK with it.  I've polled my wife on the subject, and she is OK with it, too (as long as she gets to pick my wives!).  Considering our ages, I don't think we would stand in much danger of being asked to live the principle, however.  Perhaps our complacence over it is due to this, but upon reflection I don't think so -- she once told me that she had a dream that we would ultimately be expected to participate in plural marriage.  And she didn't seem bothered by it when she told me about it.

 

I really sympathize with the rest of you who get the trembling heebie-jeebies over the subject.  I just don't worry much about it, myself. 

 

[Uncle Dale]

 

...The fact that polygamy was a major characteristic of many marriages in the Old Testament (for thousands of years) made it clear that "the restoration of all things" would require it. 

...

 

 

 

If I read my Torah correctly, then Enoch the son of Cain was the

first polygamist -- whether his initial example was "a major chacteristic"

of hundreds of thousands of subsequent Israelite and Jewish marriages

might be a matter worth discussing -- that his paticular example should

be "restored" is a matter for constitutions, legislatures and courts, I

suppose. -- It already is somewhat commonplace (legally or quasi-legally)

in most of the Muslim world, parts of South Asia and parts of Africa.

 

But why on earth would anybody wish to "restore all things?" Even

the "Great Restorationist," Alexander Campbell, only went so far as

supporting bringing back the "Ancient Order of Things" as it

applied directly to the Apostolic Christian Church.

 

I doubt at this point anybody can "restore" the Hittites, the Tower at

Babel, the walls of Jericho or Balaam's talking donkey.

 

But, suppose somebody (the Pope? the Anti-Christ? Warren Jeffs?)

were to restore polygamy, world-wide, only to the proportion existing

when Enoch the son of Cain took his second wife. What ratio is that?

One polygamist to, what? perhaps, a half-dozen monogamists?

 

Seems the Muslims have already gotten us near enough that point.

 

UD

Edited February 1, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Stargazer]

But why on earth would anybody wish to "restore all things?"

Ha ha, very funny. If we're going to twist the matter so amusingly, then I, for one, want some dinosaurs back, not to mention the Wooly Mammoth, the Dire Wolf, and Megaladon. Especially Megaladon.

[Uncle Dale]

Ha ha, very funny. If we're going to twist the matter so amusingly, then I, for one, want some dinosaurs back, not to mention the Wooly Mammoth, the Dire Wolf, and Megaladon. Especially Megaladon.

 

 

As best I can recall, I was once told that a "plan of salvation" was long ago set in

motion and that it entailed all sorts of revelation, commandments, rites, signs,

keys, passwords, tokens, ordinances, blessings, curses, practices, & prohibitions

pertaining directly to the everlasting and unchangeable antiquity of the gospel.

 

When I attempted to recite all of that in a single sentence, while a grad student

in a Protestant seminary, some wag asked whether all my contemplated restoration

didn't amount to rather more than what Rabbi Hillel would counsel -- I had to go

look up this obscure reference in an encylopedia, in order to make any sense of it.

 

I'd be curious to see what the Apostolic Church prior to Nicea was -- even to

search back prior to the crucifixion, to get a better idea of what "gospel" meant

to folks in the days of John the Baptist.

 

But where the Latter Day Saints ever came up with their seven-dispensation

program of "restoring all things," is a puzzle too difficult for my limited imagination.

 

I sometimes wonder just what those first latter-day "root doctors" (Mother Smith,

Hiram Page, Burr Riggs, D. P. Hurlbut, Fred Williams, etc.) were handing out for

our ancestors to smoke.

 

UD

[JLHPROF]

 

But where the Latter Day Saints ever came up with their seven-dispensation

program of "restoring all things," is a puzzle too difficult for my limited imagination.

 

A modification of this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology#Seven_dispensational_periods

and

of Revelation 10:4-7.

 

Plus of course, modern revelation.

[Uncle Dale]

A modification of this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalist_theology#Seven_dispensational_periods

and

of Revelation 10:4-7.

 

Plus of course, modern revelation.

 

Oh, yes -- Darby. I'd forgotten him.

 

Of course Alexander Campbell beat him to it, when it came to dispensations.

The Campbellites only had three of them in mind, however -- and the first

was mostly foreshadowing and discipline for a stiff-necked race to learn.

Nothing there worth restoring, to Presbyterian Covenant Theology levels.

 

But prior to Campbell the Royal Arch Masons had come up with an idea of

great masters, from Enoch (son of Cain? hopefully not!) on down to Solomon,

DeMolay, Newton, and whomever else they could insert to "fill the bill."

 

Going backwards from DeMolay there was more than a little overlap

between Palestinian Islam and secret Templar rites -- so much so that

kings of France and Popes of Rome took exception to the Muslim flavor.

 

Mohammed (blest be his name) was the last -- the seventh, of the great

and illustrious prophets of God. And, up until him, each of these masters

saw the previous dispensation dwindle into disbelief. And up until him,

each of the heads of the previous dispensations wrote or dictated sacred

scriptures -- some of which perished -- some of which was corrupted.

Mohammed's scripture could not be corrupted. His religion would never

be taken from the earth...

 

Thus it was that the Hebrew Bible wrongly elevated Isaac over Ishmael --

thus it was that the Jews stole the land of promise away from its

rightful Palestinian (make that "Arabian") heirs.

 

The Koran restored that lost fulness, however. St. Peter and Jesus saw

their sixth dispensation begin to wither -- Mohammed came along with

the glorious seventh, to compensate for their failed religion, and to

restore the truth, straight back to Abraham, Noah, Enoch and Adam.

 

Dispensationalism? -- I've had my fill of it.

 

UD

 

ps -- Anybody want a well-marked Ryrie Study Bible, for cheap?

[USU78]

Joseph Smith might not have been murdered because the Nauvoo Expositor might not have been destroyed. He then might have lived to be 85...

 

Not a chance.

 

Too many people wanted him dead quite irrespective of polygyny.

 

And in them there days it was far easier to get away with murder.

[Uncle Dale]

Not a chance.

 

...

Oh, I suppose things might have been worked out somewhat

differently, had the Mormons followed Patriarch William Smith's

counsel, and let up on the "literal gathering of Israel to Nauvoo"

doctrine. Bill thought things would go better for the Saints if

they were less concentrated in one spot -- more spread out.

But, all the stakes were shut down, save for those at Montrose

and Nauvoo. Perhaps that was a mistake, for it meant that

practically every day the Hancock County Gentiles would

witness yet another steamboat-full of British converts being

unloaded at the docks of the holy city -- practically penniless

Saints, arriving in a town with no job opportunities, save for

building up a strange stone building on a hilltop.

Then there were the truly penniless converts, straggling in

from far off, hungry, eyeing Missourian crops and livestock

across the river. The Gentiles didn't "cotton" to the likes of

Bill Hickman, John C. Bennett, John D. Lee, and their ilk.

And, after getting away from the "defend brethren at any cost"

mentality at besieged Nauvoo, the Mormons themselves

later disowned such "bad apples."

But where there was a vast concentration of new converts,

there was bound to be a little "milking of the Gentiles."

Apostle Orson Hyde admitted to this saintly thievery, but

blamed it all upon Rigdon's followers. President Smith was

a little more candid and admitted its presence sans Rigdon.

Had the Saints been more spread out -- not seeking to

take over whole county governments -- they might have

made lasting political allies (Whigs would have probably

been their best choice) and thus held some Gentile

support in reserve, for "times of persecution."

There still would have been polygamy to divulge -- still

unhappy parents claiming their teenage daughters had

been deluded into joining a latter-day cult -- still would

have been the Nauvoo charters and apostates to come

to terms with.

It wouldn't have been easy. Smith himself would probably

have chosen to go west from the Iowa shore, in 1844,

and not have agreed to return, as a lamb to the slaughter,

to sing "Poor Wayfaring Stranger" in Carthage Jail...

Oh, well,

UD

[USU78]

Strange how there's always an implicit assumption that all humans and human institutions except for the infant Church are given the benefit of the doubt and permitted to have warts.

 

Whether you agree with polygyny or not . . . whether you agree with the City Council and Mayor's actions or not . . . it warn't the Mormons cannonading the Baptists . . . and it warn't the Mormons who got improved real estate, livestock, hard and soft goods for 10 cents on the dollar in Nauvoo in the chaotic days after the ceasefire.

 

History has been written, both by the losers who left and, to a lesser extent, by the winners who stayed.

 

Whom to believe?  Him who got the killer deal? Or him who left to keep from getting killed?

[Uncle Dale]

...given the benefit of the doubt and permitted to have warts.

...

 

 

Do you have any idea what a relief it was for me to learn

that the RLDS were not the "One True Church!"

 

As they used to tell us in High Priests Quorum assemblies

in Independence -- "You are held to a higher standard --

to the highest of all possible standards. You are called to

be the Chosen Ones of these latter days, and to live by

every word issuing forth from the mouth of God. Not just

figuratively speaking, but every single passage in the

Standard Works and all modern revelation. You must know

it; believe it; live it every day of your lives. The world is

watching you..."

 

No -- as it turns out, the world wasn't watching us. We

may have been watching ourselves -- watching each

other. But we literally had to commit murder, bank robbery

and push the babies off a merry-go-round to merit an

article of condemnation in the Kansas City Star.

 

As for whomever the REAL chosen ones of Israel may be;

no doubt your own leaders have left you numerous discourses

on what your standards should be and whether or not to

obey the laws of Caesar, whilst dwelling in Caesar's dominions.

 

UD

[USU78]

I would like to see a little more charity towards Emma in this regard.

 

Sure she lied, but is a lie told to one's self and then repeated to others in order not to explode from the pain such a terrible thing?  Give the woman a break.

 

And those who believed (or pretended to believe) her because loving JSJr's memory was all they had to comfort themselves with, even though it was a wholly false memory, did they really do something so terribly awful?

 

Are they not rather to be pitied?

 

THAT is the conclusion I reached some 30 years ago when faced with attempts to rehabilitate Emma amongst the Brighamites.

 

It would be tough to convict JSIII of sincerity on the subject, but wouldn't you rather have the boy honor his father's memory (at least in public) and not press the matter of his mother's self-comforting lies?

[Uncle Dale]

I would like to see a little more charity towards Emma in this regard.

 

Sure she lied, but is a lie told to one's self and then repeated to others in order not to explode from the pain such a terrible thing?  Give the woman a break.

 

And those who believed (or pretended to believe) her because loving JSJr's memory was all they had to comfort themselves with, even though it was a wholly false memory, did they really do something so terribly awful?

 

Are they not rather to be pitied?

 

THAT is the conclusion I reached some 30 years ago when faced with attempts to rehabilitate Emma amongst the Brighamites.

 

It would be tough to convict JSIII of sincerity on the subject, but wouldn't you rather have the boy honor his father's memory (at least in public) and not press the matter of his mother's self-comforting lies?

 

Then there was Brother William, who also lied to us, year after year.

And all the while, Isaac Sheen knew for certain that William had been

a polygamist in his pre-RLDS years. William made an unsuccessful

attempt to lure Sheen's own wife into the "Patriarchal Order of Marriage,"

while those folks were residing in the Cincinnati-Covington area.

 

A little later Sheen was made editor of the Saints' Herald, and he

started off by exposing Joseph Smith's polygamy. Hyrum and William

would have been next on his hit-list for truth.

 

But Sheen got pre-empted by "higher authority" and was told to keep

such matters to himself -- which he did. And, so long as Sheen was the

President of the RLDS High Priests' Quorum, Bro. William was never

admitted to its august ranks. Everybody in the "higher levels" of the

Church knew why that was -- Joseph III knew; William knew... But we

lower "masses" were kept shielded from such facts (sigh!).

 

So -- no -- it wasn't just Emma. It was William Marks and several dozen

other old Nauvooites who knew the facts. They had been used to

covering it all up back in Hancock County, so continuing to do the same

in Iowa, Missouri, elsewhere in Illinois, etc. came as no great challenge.

 

Getting back to the Literal Gathering of Latter Day Israel to Zion --

both the LDS and RLDS eventually got around this troublesome

doctrine by extending the dimensions of that latter day Zion to

the very limits of the continent (and beyond -- the RLDS Polynesians

were told that there was no need to leave their Pacific homelands).

 

And, we must admit, that things go better, once thousands upon

thousands of newly-minted converts were not crowding upon their

Gentile neighbors, like locusts ready for the feast. Oddly enough,

the more scattered the Saints were, the less "persecution" they

faced. One might think that it should work the other way around --

that an unprotected branch in, say, Plano or Lamoni, should have

been far more vulnerable than their brethren of 1844, with the

great Nauvoo Legion ready to shield them from the wicked Gentiles.

 

But -- the scattered Saints did OK -- they got along with their

neighbors. Even the Utah Mormons eventually relented, and stakes

and temples were set up far from the Brineshrimp Basin.

 

So -- why did there have to be a Nauvoo anyway? What revelation

was God communicating to Smith's ears, that ever led to such an 

unwarranted build-up, so quickly -- so needlessly -- so harmfully?

 

Is it even remotely possible that Smith was not passing on the

precise and exact words from On High, and that the Expositor

could have been left untouched -- polygamy honestly admitted?

 

Can't blame a guy for wondering, can you?

 

UD