D&c 132 References For Living Polyandry

[JLHPROF]

I believe that Joseph Smith was just a man.  Sometimes he made good choices and sometimes he didn't.  I believe he made mistakes and I believe that introducing polygamy was a huge mistake.  As far as the others you named above, I think they believed in Joseph Smith and believed him when he stated that polygamy came from God.

 

Doesn't change the issue.  If you believe polygamy was never commanded of God then all those men were adulterers, regardless of where they were taught it.  If I am taught to live polygamy by Warren Jeffs or President Monson I am still committing adultery if God doesn't ordain it.

 

Either God ordained polygamy or the prophets and apostles were all adulterers, in which case they would not hold the priesthood or the keys of revelation.  There is no way round this choice.

[JLHPROF]

When was the last time you heard any presentation during general conference extolling the virtues of polygamy or polyandry? When have you heard or read anything from the pulpit expressing the same style of longing towards polygamy that you express? What would be the reaction from the bishopric or stake presidency if someone spoke from the pulpit about promolgating the idea of polygamy to family members or other saints?

 

Completely irrelevant.  If I taught that polygamy was good I would hope the leaders would have no issue.  If I taught that we should be living polygamy I would probably be excommunicated because it is forbidden right now.

 

Authorized polygamy is no sin.  It was no mistake.  It is acceptable by God when he commands it.  Most of the prophets and apostles have lived it.  They either did God's will or were all adulterers.  Eternal marriage means it will continue to exist in the Celestial Kingdom forever without end.  Our opinions, emotions, and objections change none of these facts.

[ALarson]

Doesn't change the issue.  If you believe polygamy was never commanded of God then all those men were adulterers, regardless of where they were taught it.  If I am taught to live polygamy by Warren Jeffs or President Monson I am still committing adultery if God doesn't ordain it.

 

Either God ordained polygamy or the prophets and apostles were all adulterers, in which case they would not hold the priesthood or the keys of revelation.  There is no way round this choice.

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean there isn't good in the church today.  That's where my beliefs are and I choose to attend for reasons that work for me.  I know I'm not alone in doing this either. 

 

And, not believing that marrying teenagers or that marrying other men's wives came from God (when I already have a legal wife), does not make me weak or less valiant.

Edited April 17, 2015 by ALarson

[bcuzbcuz]

Then you would have no other choice than to label Joseph Smith an adulterer and by extension dismiss any revelation of doctrine proclaimed by him after the unrepentant adulterous act (which would include the temple ordinances).

 

You would also have no other option than to consider Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, and all the apostles who served under them till about 1904 to be adulterers and therefore not God's servants.

 

In short, if you believe polygamy was not from God it can be nothing else but adultery, and if it is adultery then the Church has no authority as all the prophets would have lost their calling for adultery.  They would be a Church of King Davids.

You state it well. Polygamy is adultery. Look up https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-sister-wife-polygamy-was-like-living-with-adultery-on-a-daily-basis

Former ‘sister wife’: Polygamy was ‘like living with adultery on a daily basis’

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah, February 11, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A woman who lived in a polygamous ‘marriage’ in Utah for 18 years has spoken out to the U.K.’s Daily Mail, telling the paper that despite practitioners’ increasing push for public acceptance and legal recognition, all is not well behind closed doors.

“The only way that I can explain it is like living with adultery on a daily basis, and having the woman come home,” said Marion Munn, who spoke to the Daily Mail after a federal judge struck down Utah’s anti-cohabitation law, which the state had previously used to prosecute polygamists.

Munn says that although she despised the idea of polygamy, she was convinced by her religious superiors that she risked God’s wrath if she failed to submit to the lifestyle.

“Certainly within Mormon-based polygamy, it's not really much of a choice, because Mormon scriptures teach a woman that if she doesn't consent to living in polygamy, God's going to destroy her,” Munn told the Daily Mail. “So for me going into it, I didn't personally want to live it, but I felt compelled to as a matter of faith.”

Munn was born in England, but moved to Utah after converting to a fundamentalist sect of Mormonism that still practices plural marriage. Some 40,000 people are thought to live in polygamous ‘marriages’ in Utah, where their unions are recognized by their sects, but not the modern Mormon Church or the state. Nationwide, up to 100,000 people are estimated to be living in such arrangements.

Ironically, while Utah was forced to officially stamp out polygamy as a condition of statehood, it may now be the United States government that forces the practice back into the mainstream. As state officials fight to preserve the state’s definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, the federal courts have been their biggest obstacle. The decision to strike down the anti-cohabitation bill came on the heels of another federal court ruling redefining marriage to include homosexual couples (that ruling has been temporarily halted pending appeal).

In December, citing Lawrence v. Texas, the controversial 2003 Supreme Court decision that overturned anti-sodomy laws nationwide, Judge Clark Waddoups of the United States District Court ruled that Utah’s anti-cohabitation law was an unconstitutional intrusion of the state into the sexual behaviors of consenting adults.

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by the stars of the popular reality show “Sister Wives,” who have made a career out of popularizing polygamy in the mainstream media. Kody Brown and his four ‘wives’ – one legal, the others not – moved to the suburbs of Las Vegas after their hit television program attracted unwanted scrutiny from Utah law enforcement. But they sued to overturn Utah’s anti-cohabitation law, arguing it violated their religious freedom and privacy rights.

“This is essentially the Lawrence v. Texas for plural families,” said the Browns’ lawyer, Jonathan Turley.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes vowed to appeal the ruling.

While Kody and his ‘wives’ strive to put a positive spin on their polygamous lifestyle – their catchphrase is: “Love should be multiplied, not divided” – cracks sometimes appear in the shiny façade, revealing simmering resentment, jealousy and hurt feelings just below the surface. Forced to compete for Kody’s time, money, and affection, the four women – Meri, Janelle, Christine and Robyn – have fought bitterly with him and each other over housing arrangements, pregnancies, child rearing, leisure time and just about everything else.

“Part of the pathos of the Sister Wives show comes when patriarch Kody Brown introduces a new wife and mom to the ‘sisters,’” wrote legal analyst Marci Hamilton in a scathing article attacking the family’s lawsuit. “For those who believe in gender equality, this arrangement should be seen as more than just television entertainment; it is a recipe for oppression, and a foot in the door for the patriarchal principle that unfairly ruled our world not so long ago.”

“No collection of individuals—even those with their own reality-television show, or a set of religious beliefs—has the power or right to define what marriage is,” added Hamilton. That is the obligation and power of the state legislature. When marriage is defined, it also determines a wide range of issues, including who is responsible for which children, who inherits from whom, and who owns what. These are crucial constitutive elements of our society that cannot be left to the whim of each individual.”

Hamilton drew attention to the high profile case of Warren Jeffs, who is serving a life sentence behind bars for molesting underage girls he “married” within his sect.

“Utah has declared polygamy illegal, and for good public-policy reasons,” Hamilton wrote. “When practiced in a community, it leads to the necessity of each man looking to younger and younger women, and the abandonment of some of the boys to make the odds work for the men. Even if the Brown clan can make polygamy look banal, as opposed to outright evil, the structure has a sure tendency to suppress women, foreclose the full flowering of their potential, and make children defenseless.”

Indeed, women and children who have escaped the lifestyle have long told horror stories about what it is like to live that way.

In her 2007 memoir Escape, Carolyn Jessop recounted her experience being married off to a 50-year-old member of Jeffs’ sect when she was barely 18.

As one of six of the man’s ‘wives,’ the teenager, who had never even kissed a boy before, quickly realized that “the only way to protect myself in my marriage was by remaining of sexual value to him. Sex was the only currency I had to spend in my marriage - every polygamist wife knows that. A woman who possesses a high sex status with her husband has more power over his other wives.”

“If she becomes unattractive to him, she is on dangerous ground - usually winding up as a slave to the dominant wife,” Jessop explained. “So although I hated Merril touching me, I knew I had to make myself attractive to him, even though there was no chemistry between us and our sex life was always perfunctory.”

Eventually, Jessop had eight children by her husband, whom she says he beat regularly. But when her seventh baby became ill with cancer as an infant, she realized that “no one cared” about her or her children. Not one of the other wives came to see them during the long hospital stay or offered so much as a word of sympathy or support.

“This was a mark of the essentially competitive relationship we all had - the internal rivalries between six wives were hugely complex,” wrote Jessop. But she said the experience was “a wake-up call.” She began planning her escape, and in 2003, she fled with her eight children. “Within hours,” she wrote, “Merril was hunting me down like prey, but I didn't care. I would rather be dead than live that way another minute.”

‘Better off dead’ is a concept revisited again and again in the gripping 1882 treatise The Women of Mormonism: The Story of Polygamy as Told by the Victims Themselves, which is filled with firsthand accounts of suffering by ‘sister wives’ in polygamous households.

“The house was a perfect hell, and every polygamous household is,” wrote one woman. “I defy any man or woman in [utah] Territory to cite one instance of a polygamous household where there is anything approaching harmony – where there is not bickering, constant jealousy and heart-aches, even where the semblance of good relations is most rigidly observed.”

“[Polygamy] renders man coarse, tyrannical, brutal, and heartless,” wrote another woman. “It deals death to all sentiments of true womanhood. It enslaves and ruins woman. It crucifies every God-given feeling of her nature. She is taught that to love her husband as her heart prompts her to do, and to feel the natural jealousy that comes from seeing her husband marry another woman, is wicked, and springs from her innate depravity; that she must crush out and annihilate all such feelings.”

Yet another wrote, “How can a wife have those holy and tender feelings which should always be associated with the marriage tie, and which are inseparable from a true union, when she can speak, and to all appearances calmly, of her husband's having ‘gone to stay with some other woman?’ What ideas of home love and home associations can children have who talk about 'father's week at the other house,' and who discuss freely which woman is his favorite, and why she is so, and which woman's children he is most indulgent to, and provides for the best?”

Chris Gacek, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, told LifeSiteNews he believes polygamy is inherently unfair to women.

“Monogamy benefits women on many levels, and research shows that includes the emotional and spiritual,” Gacek said. “Efforts to undermine the definition of marriage in one area (e.g., number of marital partners) inevitably lead to conceptual murkiness about the nature of the conjugal relationship that men and women can expect of each other.”

[JLHPROF]

Yes, I agree. That doesn't mean there isn't good in the church today.  That's where my beliefs are and I choose to attend for reasons that work for me.  I know I'm not alone in doing this either. 

 

And, not believing that marrying teenagers or that marrying other men's wives came from God (when I already have a legal wife), does not make me weak or less valiant.

 

But it does raise the question of whether you believe the Church today has priesthood authority.  If these men were all adulterers the priesthood would not have remained with them, and therefore could not be in the Church today.

And that would make every ordinance the Church performed invalid.

[JLHPROF]

You state it well. Polygamy is adultery. Look up https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/former-sister-wife-polygamy-was-like-living-with-adultery-on-a-daily-basis

 

See my response to ALarson.

 

As for the testimony of a disaffected polygamist, I don't give that much weight doctrinally.

Especially when they contradict themselves:

Munn says that although she despised the idea of polygamy, she was convinced by her religious superiors that she risked God’s wrath if she failed to submit to the lifestyle.

“Certainly within Mormon-based polygamy, it's not really much of a choice, because Mormon scriptures teach a woman that if she doesn't consent to living in polygamy, God's going to destroy her,” Munn told the Daily Mail. “So for me going into it, I didn't personally want to live it, but I felt compelled to as a matter of faith.”

Munn was born in England, but moved to Utah after converting to a fundamentalist sect of Mormonism that still practices plural marriage.

 

 

Was she converted to fundamentalism or not?  Nobody made her join a polygamist sect when she didn't want to live polygamy.

Edited April 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

But it does raise the question of whether you believe the Church today has priesthood authority.  If these men were all adulterers the priesthood would not have remained with them, and therefore could not be in the Church today.

I believe that everyone has the power of God in them.  I don't believe you have to be given (ordained with) this power.  I believe that women can give blessings just as men can and that God doesn't discriminate with how he hears them or answers their prayers.

[Gray]

Then you would have no other choice than to label Joseph Smith an adulterer and by extension dismiss any revelation of doctrine proclaimed by him after the unrepentant adulterous act (which would include the temple ordinances).

 

You would also have no other option than to consider Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, and all the apostles who served under them till about 1904 to be adulterers and therefore not God's servants.

 

In short, if you believe polygamy was not from God it can be nothing else but adultery, and if it is adultery then the Church has no authority as all the prophets would have lost their calling for adultery.  They would be a Church of King Davids.

 

There are no perfect prophets/apostles in the scriptures. I'm not sure why we need perfection in the modern church - it's not realistic. 

Edited April 17, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

But it does raise the question of whether you believe the Church today has priesthood authority.  If these men were all adulterers the priesthood would not have remained with them, and therefore could not be in the Church today.

And that would make every ordinance the Church performed invalid.

 

That's one assumption, but I don't know that it necessarily follows that all the good someone does is invalidated by their mistakes. 

[JLHPROF]

I believe that everyone has the power of God in them.  I don't believe you have to be given (ordained with) this power.  I believe that women can give blessings just as men can and that God doesn't discriminate with how he hears them or answers their prayers.

 

There are no perfect prophets/apostles in the scriptures. I'm not sure why we need them now. 

 

You appear to be missing the point.  Not arguing about imaginary perfection.

 

If polygamy was not ordained of God then the Church is no longer the Church of God either.  The authority of the restored gospel would have been lost by virtue of the men holding the keys all committing adultery.  We would be no better off than our wonderful Catholic brethren, and there would need to be either another restoration or the earth will be destroyed.  The ordinances of the temple would not be from God.  The authority to baptize would be lost. 

 

All because instead of living plural marriage ordained by God those men all committed adultery instead.

 

ALarson - the 5th Article of Faith is clear about the necessity of ordination to priesthood authority.  I don't believe that's always necessary to give a blessing, but priesthood still matters.

[ALarson]

But it does raise the question of whether you believe the Church today has priesthood authority.  If these men were all adulterers the priesthood would not have remained with them, and therefore could not be in the Church today.

 

How do you know that the Priesthood wouldn't have remained with them?  They may not have been worthy Priesthood holders, but unless they were excommunicated, they'd still hold the Priesthood.

[JLHPROF]

That's one assumption, but I don't know that it necessarily follows that all the good someone does is invalidated by their mistakes. 

 

If the mistake is repeated adultery that is major sin.  We aren't talking the woman who Christ told to go and sin no more.  We are talking about an assumption by the "polygamy was not of God" crowd that unavoidably makes 1840ish to 1900ish (60+ years and all the major leaders/priesthood bearers) a time of nothing but adultery.

 

If this were true there is simply NO way that the Church could have maintained any priesthood authority.  King David's life teaches us that clearly.

Anyone who truly believes that polygamy was not of God should not be a member of the Church.  Yep.  I really said that.  Because it's true.  They would be following a Church that had lost all authority and participating in ordinances that would probably not have come from God since the man that revealed them was committing repeated acts of adultery at the time.

 

Either polygamy was from God (and it was) or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is no longer God's Church.

[ALarson]

All because instead of living plural marriage ordained by God those men all committed adultery instead.

 

And, this is exactly why members are now struggling with learning the details regarding how Joseph Smith (and others) lived polygamy and polyandry.  They could believe that Joseph married widows who needed taking care of after their husbands were killed by the mobs, but to learn that he married teenagers and other active member's wives makes it very difficult to believe it came from God.

 

Add Fanny Alger into the mix and that Joseph married her even before the sealing keys were restored to him and members are struggling even more after learning this.

Edited April 17, 2015 by ALarson

[Buckeye]

But it does raise the question of whether you believe the Church today has priesthood authority.  If these men were all adulterers the priesthood would not have remained with them, and therefore could not be in the Church today.

And that would make every ordinance the Church performed invalid.

 

If the priest who blesses the sacrament in my ward is unworthy, the ordiance is still valid for me and the atonement still works through the ordinance. Why would that be any different for sealings or other ordinances?

 

And as others have pointed out, there is a big difference between a sincere mistake and sin. The Lord looketh on the heart, not the outward actions. It's possible to view polygamy as a mistake (even a huge mistake), but not a ground to reject the church's claims to authority. And even if one were to conclude the church has no more authority than other churchs (I don't hold this view) they could still believe that God works through the church today just as he works through other churches that lack authority.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

If the mistake is repeated adultery that is major sin.  We aren't talking the woman who Christ told to go and sin no more.  We are talking about an assumption by the "polygamy was not of God" crowd that unavoidably makes 1840ish to 1900ish (60+ years and all the major leaders/priesthood bearers) a time of nothing but adultery.

 

If this were true there is simply NO way that the Church could have maintained any priesthood authority.  King David's life teaches us that clearly.

Anyone who truly believes that polygamy was not of God should not be a member of the Church.  Yep.  I really said that.  Because it's true.  They would be following a Church that had lost all authority and participating in ordinances that would probably not have come from God since the man that revealed them was committing repeated acts of adultery at the time.

 

Either polygamy was from God (and it was) or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is no longer God's Church.

JLHPROF, that is a very black and white approach and assumes you have a perfect understanding of God's expectations of worthiness. Of course those expectations are defined by the words of the prophets who may have been unworthy. See the problem?

Besides, like others have said, if the prophets after JS truly believed polygamy was a commandment of God were they sinning in it's practice? No more than prophets after BY perpetuating the priesthood ban and the racist doctrines for why it was instituted.

Another question might be, which is worse? The individual lustful sin of adultery or the systemic, hateful sin of racism?

Sins of omission and commission do not necessarily require the forfeiture of authority. But then again, maybe you're right in your stated worst-case scenario of church authority. We don't really know because we are judging as men, not as God.

[JLHPROF]

How do you know that the Priesthood wouldn't have remained with them?  They may not have been worthy Priesthood holders, but unless they were excommunicated, they'd still hold the Priesthood.

 

 

Because of these:

 

 

 

D&C 42:24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out.

 

D&C 121:37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 

D&C 63:16 And verily I say unto you, as I have said before, he that looketh on a woman to lust after her, or if any shall commit adultery in their hearts, they shall not have the Spirit, but shall deny the faith and shall fear.

 

"One of the most corrupting and debasing vices rampant in our society today is unchastity. Let us be ever mindful that from Sinai the Lord thundered, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

The penalty for so doing under the Mosaic law was death. Notwithstanding the fact that in this generation’s corrupt permissiveness its violation is tolerated with impunity, under God’s divine law it is as it has always been, a soul-destroying sin. Its self-executing penalty is spiritual death. No unforgiven adulterer is magnifying his calling in the priesthood; and, as President Clark used to say, the Lord has made no “fine distinctions … between fornication and adultery” (Conference Report, Oct. 1949, p. 194). Nor, may I add, between adultery and sex perversion." - Marion G. Romney

 

 

If all these men were adulterers they would not have had the spirit, revelation to lead the Church or the right to perform any ordinances.

[ALarson]

JLHPROF, I see nowhere in those quotes that states the Priesthood was taken from them.  As far as I know, excommunication is the only way that takes place.  Maybe the spirit is lost, maybe they can't magnify their callings in the Priesthood (from your quotes), but they'd still hold the Priesthood.

Edited April 17, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF, I see nowhere in those quotes that states the Priesthood was taken from them.  As far as I know, excommunication is the only way that takes place.  Maybe the spirit is lost, maybe they can't magnify their callings in the Priesthood (from your quotes), but they'd still hold the Priesthood.

 

What part of "Amen to the priesthood or authority" doesn't make sense?

Edited April 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

What part of "Amen to the priesthood or authority" doesn't make sense?

They still held the Priesthood.  They weren't excommunicated.

 

Are you saying that every man who holds the Priesthood and then sins is no longer a Priesthood holder even if they're not excommunicated? 

Edited April 17, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

If the priest who blesses the sacrament in my ward is unworthy, the ordiance is still valid for me and the atonement still works through the ordinance. Why would that be any different for sealings or other ordinances?

This. 

 

Unless these men were excommunicated, they still held the Priesthood. To believe polygamy didn't come from God doesn't mean you have to believe that all of the ordinances performed from there on out by the men who lived polygamy weren't valid.

Edited April 17, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

They still held the Priesthood.  They weren't excommunicated.

 

Are you saying that every man who holds the Priesthood and then sins is no longer a Priesthood holder even if they're not excommunicated? 

 

No, I'm saying that every man that violates the conditions upon which his holding the priesthood is based loses it, regardless of membership status.  Priesthood is authority to act on behalf of God, not a Church given thing.

We only exercise priesthood with God's approval.  And just how many adulterers do we think God gives authority or power to.  Just how many ordinances performed by adulterers are valid to God?  Just how many revelations to lead his Church do we thing God gives to adulterers?

 

No, Joseph and the other leaders of the Church were not adulterers because God honored them and the ordinances they performed.  He gave them revelation after revelation.  Therefore polygamy is no sin.

[Gray]

We would be no better off than our wonderful Catholic brethren,

 

Well, that's already my position. I don't hold one church as being superior to any other. I understand your perspective - given your assumptions, you're absolutely right. I don't have the same assumptions though. 

[ALarson]

No, Joseph and the other leaders of the Church were not adulterers because God honored them and the ordinances they performed.  He gave them revelation after revelation.  Therefore polygamy is no sin.

This is your opinion and I respect your right to believe this.  We just happen to disagree.  I will never believe that polygamy and polyandry came from God.

 

(I answered the rest of your post in my previous one.)

Edited April 17, 2015 by ALarson

[Gray]

What part of "Amen to the priesthood or authority" doesn't make sense?

 

It's a strange turn of phrase. It sounds like he's saying "Goodbye to the priesthood or authority." But amen doesn't mean goodbye. I think that's what he meant, but of course I don't know. 

 

Maybe it's a 19th century expression. 

[ALarson]

Good point, Gray.

 

Amen usually is stating agreement or ratification.  Interesting phrase, "Amen to the priesthood or authority".