Did early Church leaders teach that polygamy was necessary for exaltation

[Scott Lloyd]

I've seen individuals on this board insist that early Church leaders taught that plurality of wives was required for exaltation in the celestial kingdom.

Here are a couple of blog posts that refute that notion.

The first, by Robert Boylan, links to the second, by Brian Hales.

I will here state that of my direct-line Mormon pioneer ancestors going back four generations to the 1800s, only one practiced plural marriage, Yet I'm quite certain all, being active and faithful Latter-day Saints, anticipated exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. They could not have done so if plural marriage were a prerequisite.

Edited to add: I forgot to put a question mark in the thread title. Pardon the oversight.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[VideoGameJunkie]

I remember a quote from Brigham Young saying it. And the polygamy part of D&C 132 is still canonized in the same chapter talking about marriage and exaltation so it's a possibility. I mean the first several prophets were polygamists so I'm sure they at least thought it.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I remember a quote from Brigham Young saying it. And the polygamy part of D&C 132 is still canonized in the same chapter talking about marriage and exaltation so it's a possibility. I mean the first several prophets were polygamists so I'm sure they at least thought it.

Did you check the links? Brigham Young is quoted in one of them as saying there would be non-polygamists exalted as well as polygamists.

Edited to add:

From the Boylan blog post:

Quote

President Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all. (Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 9 vol.; 6:527, journal entry for 12 Feb. 1870 [The New Mormon Studies CD-ROM]).

The plural marriage portion is still in Section 132 because the doctrine is still embraced by the Church, though the practice is not.

Our understanding today is that the Lord in the past has temporarily decreed it as a means to "raise up seed" unto Him, but the default mandate is monogamy.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Avatar4321]

I agree. If the Lord commanded it they would need to obey but I also think only somre were commanded to follow it.

[VideoGameJunkie]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you check the links? Brigham Young is quoted in one of them as saying there would be non-polygamists exalted as well as polygamists.

Edited to add:

From the Boylan blog post:

The plural marriage portion is still in Section 132 because the doctrine is still embraced by the Church, though the practice is not.

Our understanding today is that the Lord in the past has temporarily decreed it as a means to "raise up seed" unto Him, but the default mandate is monogamy.

Wolford woodruffs quote seems off. He says there will people with no wife saved in the Celestial Kingdom?  I thought you had to have at least a spouse to be exalted. And if saved in the CK doesn't mean exalted then that also means the quote doesn't help.

[Zakuska]

24 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I remember a quote from Brigham Young saying it. And the polygamy part of D&C 132 is still canonized in the same chapter talking about marriage and exaltation so it's a possibility. I mean the first several prophets were polygamists so I'm sure they at least thought it.

That was this quote.

"The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269.)

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've seen individuals on this board insist that early Church leaders taught that plurality of wives was required for exaltation in the celestial kingdom.

Here are a couple of blog posts that refute that notion.

The first, by Robert Boylan, links to the second, by Brian Hales.

I will here state that of my direct-line Mormon pioneer ancestors going back four generations to the 1800s, only one practiced plural marriage, Yet I'm quite certain all, being active and faithful Latter-day Saints, anticipated exaltation in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. They could not have done so if plural marriage were a prerequisite.

Just to be clear as to your OP, the notion being refuted isn't whether early leaders taught it (because some definitely did).  What is refuted on the link provided is whether polygamy is necessary for exaltation.

Correct?
Because if your thread topic is that polygamy isn't needed for exaltation that is certainly Church teaching.
But if your topic is whether early leaders taught it was necessary, they absolutely did.  Brigham especially did.

As for the problems with the sources in that link - they are as bad as the twisting of meaning on the Fairmormon page on the subject.
The Temple Lot testimonies are hardly a reference for full disclosure of what Joseph actually taught.

 

[sunstoned]

Quote

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

.Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City," (19 August 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:268-269

 

I am sure you all have seen this quote before.  BY speaks very clearly on the matter and summarizes it in the last sentence. Yes, I have read the blog and I have read what FairMormon has to say on the matter. In light of BY's clear remarks, I find their reasoning strained.  

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

 BY speaks very clearly on the matter and summarizes it in the last sentence. Yes, I have read the blog and I have read what FairMormon has to say on the matter. In light of BY's clear remarks, I find their reasoning strained.  

The reasoning is a little more than strained.
Polygamy may not be necessary for exaltation.  But Brigham absolutely taught it was.
Those that think he was wrong should just disavow his teaching on the subject as they have his teachings on Adam, the negro and Cain, blood atonement, eternal progression, and other topics.

I don't see why the need to explain away his statement on this one when disavowing his statements seems to be standard operating procedure.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Just to be clear as to your OP, the notion being refuted isn't whether early leaders taught it (because some definitely did).  What is refuted on the link provided is whether polygamy is necessary for exaltation.

Correct?
Because if your thread topic is that polygamy isn't needed for exaltation that is certainly Church teaching.
But if your topic is whether early leaders taught it was necessary, they absolutely did.  Brigham especially did.

 

 

It is clear from the quotes provided from eyewitnesses that Joseph Smith did not teach plurality of wives to be a prerequisite for exaltation.

As for Brigham Young, this may be another instance of Brigham Young contradicting Brigham Young. However, it appears that what he meant was that Church members living at that time must accept the doctrine of plurality of wives whether or not they practiced it. That's pretty much how it is today: The doctrine is still in place, though the practice long ago ceased.

Quote

As for the problems with the sources in that link - they are as bad as the twisting of meaning on the Fairmormon page on the subject.
The Temple Lot testimonies are hardly a reference for full disclosure of what Joseph actually taught.

I took a look at your  FairMormon page link, and I don't hold with your opinion of it. The reasoning seems pretty compelling to me. President Young tended to preach in hyperboles, but if the entirety and context of the sermon are considered, it seems pretty clear he was saying Church members must accept that the commandment to practice plurality of wives came from God, though not everyone would be required to practice it.

 

[JLHPROF]

The biggest question believing members should be asking themselves where plural marriage is concerned is this:

Every law God has ever given to man comes with a specific blessing attached.  What is the blessing from God that is given to those who lived plural marriage that those who never will (this life or the next) will not receive?  What blessing was taken from man when plural marriage was revoked? 
As you say the doctrine is still in place - that means law and blessing of the doctrine that has been revoked.  We talk about the law on this board.  What blessing has been revoked with its law?

Unless we believe it was a law with no blessing attached - a very unique law if that were the case.

Edited January 15, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The reasoning is a little more than strained.
Polygamy may not be necessary for exaltation.  But Brigham absolutely taught it was.
Those that think he was wrong should just disavow his teaching on the subject as they have his teachings on Adam, the negro and Cain, blood atonement, eternal progression, and other topics.

I don't see why the need to explain away his statement on this one when disavowing his statements seems to be standard operating procedure.

Brigham softened his preaching by saying men must be polygamists "in their hearts." There would have been no point in his adding that phrase if he intended to say that a man must absolutely practice plurality of wives or be forever denied exaltation. That three-word phrase "in their hearts" eviscerates the contention that Brigham meant everyone who is to be exalted must practice polygamy.

Again, most of my Mormon pioneer ancestors never practiced plurality of wives. My guess is the bulk of the Latter-day Saints from that era never did either. It strains reason to suppose that early Church leaders expected that most of the faithful Church members would never be exalted merely because they never had the opportunity or means to be polygamists.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The biggest question believing members should be asking themselves where plural marriage is concerned is this:

Every law God has ever given to man comes with a specific blessing attached.  What is the blessing from God that is given to those who lived plural marriage that those who never will (this life or the next) will not receive?  What blessing was taken from man when plural marriage was revoked?

Unless we believe it was a law with no blessing attached - a very unique law if that were the case.

I've never been called to serve as a bishop. I have no particular reason to expect that I ever will be.

Under your reasoning -- that every divine requirement comes with a specific blessing attached -- what specific blessing am I doomed to have denied to me for the rest of eternity for never having served as a bishop?

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Brigham softened his preaching by saying men must be polygamists "in their hearts." There would have been no point in his adding that phrase if he intended to say that a man must absolutely practice plurality of wives or be denied exaltation. That three-word phrase "in their hearts" cuts eviscerates the contention that Brigham mean everyone who is exalted must practice polygamy.

And what exactly do you think "polygamist in their hearts" means?
It means they've accepted the doctrine as true whether they have the opportunity to live it or not.  And they would live it if asked/called, and would consider it a blessing from God.

Is the person that says "polygamy was a sore trial from God, and I am so glad I never have to live it" a polygamist in their heart?  No, they aren't.
And if you are a polygamist in your heart, do you really think that God wouldn't grant you the righteous desire of your heart at some time in the future - in this life or the next?
That's like a single person who accepts eternal marriage in their heart being denied the opportunity of an eternal companion.  What did the prophets say about that again?

No, being a polygamist in your heart isn't a way to say "I get to accept it and never live it".  It's not a get out of jail free card.
I am a polygamist in my heart because I know it was from the Lord, that it brought blessings, and would live it if asked.  Are you?

Edited January 15, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've never been called to serve as a bishop. I have no particular reason to expect that I ever will be.

Under your reasoning -- that every divine requirement comes with a specific blessing attached -- what specific blessing am I doomed to have denied to me for the rest of eternity for never having served as a bishop?

That was my question to you.  When we attain ANY blessing it is by obedience to a law.  If you live the law of plural marriage, what blessing do you attain to that you wouldn't have otherwise?  Is there no benefit or blessing attached for Joseph in living the law when he was commanded to?

And a calling as a Bishop isn't a law of God.  A better comparison would be the law of Consecration.

Edited January 15, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Zakuska]

The blog post is a stretch... because the revelation speaking specificly of polygamy also references "the same law" that the blog post says only pertains to monogamy.

34 God ^acommanded Abraham, and Sarah gave ^bHagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And what exactly do you think "polygamist in their hearts" means?
 

I think it means they accept that the commandment came from God although they may not necessarily relish the prospect. Just as many of the Saints called to practice plural marriage did so out of a sense of obedience and duty, not because they were necessarily eager to do so.

Quote

It means they've accepted the doctrine as true whether they have the opportunity to live it or not.  And they would live it if asked/called, and would consider it a blessing from God.

A blessing from God? A duty or an obligation, perhaps. One that would undoubtedly entail blessings for having been obedient, just as any obedience to God brings blessings.

 

Quote

 

Is the person that says "polygamy was a sore trial from God, and I am so glad I never have to live it" a polygamist in their heart?  No, they aren't.

 

 

 

 

If I were to say, "The handcart pioneers endured great hardship and sacrifice. I honor them for their dedication. I'm glad I never had to go through such an ordeal and I hope I never do," does that mean I'm not a Latter-day Saint in my heart? I don't buy that.

Quote

.
I am a polygamist in my heart because I know it was from the Lord, that it brought blessings, and would live it if asked.  Are you?

Of course. Doesn't mean I would ever want to live it -- or would ever expect to.

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[strappinglad]

If one attains the Celestial Kingdom, is one then considered exalted? 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

If one attains the Celestial Kingdom, is one then considered exalted? 

Maybe. Depends on which degree they are in.

[guerreiro9]

We have much of Brigham Young's writings, and reports of what he said.  Yet even so, we should not assume we have everything.  

We pour over old quotes which may or may not be accurate hoping to find some nugget to prove this point or the other.  When we find a quote we then interpret it through the prism of our modern day.

Ask yourself this question "How did the Saints understand the teachings of Brigham Young in the day and age they were given?"

Given that the vast majority of church members never practiced polygamy yet had hope of exaltation it is reasonable to assume that its practice was not viewed as necessary for exaltation.

-guerreiro9

[halconero]

Oh man....I'm not sure I want to get into this...but notions of a movable date of the 2nd Coming, exaltations, and an independent political entity called Zion/Kingdom of God come to mind...all connected with doctrines on polygamy, consecration, hidden mysteries, the temple, etc.

Again, I hesitate to bring it up as I'm not even sure what I believe/know/understand about the topics.

[Tacenda]

How would you populate the world without it?  I think that's where these leaders were coming from.  All those righteous women needing a husband, is another one.

[Thinking]

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." (D&C 132:1-3)

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same." (D&C 132:1-3)

As I read that it says that all must be married to be exalted - not that all must enter temporal polygamy - which is the issue.

I believe nowhere do the standard works state that temporal polygamy is necessary.

However, Isaiah does say:

Isaiah 4:1

1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

I believe this to refer to a type of spiritual polygamy of the churches.

[Calm]

Don't take JoD quotes as perfect.  In fact, read this and proceed with caution:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/prophets-have-spoken-what-did-they-say-examining-differences-between-george-d-watts-original