Did early Church leaders teach that polygamy was necessary for exaltation

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours 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.

The preface to Official Declaration 1 states that plural marriage is the Lord's exception for marriage and that the standard of marital monogamy is the general rule.

The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that MONOGAMY is God’s standard for marriage unless He declares otherwise (see 2 Samuel 12:7–8and Jacob 2:27, 30).

The Nephites were commanded of the Lord to practice monogamy, so isn't it ludicrous to imagine President Young believed Lehi, Nephi, and Jacob wouldn't inherit the fulness of eternal glory because they had only one wife? I recently read a quote from President Young on another thread (wish I could remember where to find it) where he said it"s incumbent on the members of the Church to accept plural marriage as a divine principle but not necessarily as a personal practice.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Clarity

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Polygamy isn't a law of God either. The law of God is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, which essentially means the sealing of families and generations together. Plurality of wives falls under that, but only as specifically and temporarily mandated by God. It is not essential for salvation and exaltation, as you have acknowledged. 

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours 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.

A point you may not have considered: It's estimated that in polygamy's heyday about 20% to 25% of LDS families were polygamous. So that would mean only about (I'm estimating) 5% to 10% of LDS men were polygamists. So do you actually believe upwards of 95% of faithful Latter-day Saint men believed they were being disobedient to a critical commandment and that as a consequence they had no hope of  obtaining the fulness of eternal glory? 

Another point to ponder: In order for every LDS man in Brigham Young's day to practice plural marriage, there would need to have been at least 2 eligible LDS women for every eligible LDS man (that's only 2 LDS women for every man, so having more than 2 wives would be out). But the problem is that the actual population split between LDS men and women was more like 50%/50%, so the possibility of every faithful LDS man having more than one wife -- so they could officially be considered polygamists -- was an impossibility. So on a practical level, the idea that every LDS man needed to practice polygamy in order to be exalted would have been IMPOSSIBLE to achieve! So the idea that God expected every LDS man to practice plural marriage is grossly unfair and inequitable...  that is unless God is partial and a believer in the law of the jungle.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Clarity

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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

No.

Exaltation is to live as God lives, not to live where God lives.

Edited January 15, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Polygamy isn't a law of God either. The law of God is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, which essentially means the sealing of families and generations together. Plurality of wives falls under that, but only as specifically and temporarily mandated by God. It is not essential for salvation and exaltation, as you have acknowledged. 

D&C 132:34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar 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.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A point you may not have considered: It's estimated that in polygamy's heyday about 20% to 25% of LDS families were polygamous. So that would mean only about (I'm estimating) 5% to 10% of LDS men were polygamists. So do you actually believe upwards of 95% of faithful Latter-day Saint men believed they were being disobedient to a critical commandment and that as a consequence they had no hope of  obtaining the fulness of eternal glory? 

Another point to ponder: In order for every LDS man in Brigham Young's day to practice plural marriage, there would need to have been at least 2 eligible LDS women for every eligible LDS man (that's only 2 LDS women for every man, so having more than 2 wives would be out). But the problem is that the actual population split between LDS men and women was more like 50%/50%, so the possibility of every faithful LDS man having more than one wife -- so they could officially be considered polygamists -- was an impossibility. So on a practical level, the idea that every LDS man needed to practice polygamy in order to be exalted would have been IMPOSSIBLE to achieve! So the idea that God expected every LDS man to practice plural marriage is grossly unfair and inequitable...  that is unless God is partial and is a believer in the law of the jungle.

 

And the saints also proved unwilling to live the Law of Consecration and their situations at times (as in Missouri) sometimes prevented it.  So God revoked that law too with its blessings.

" do you actually believe upwards of 95% of faithful Latter-day Saint men believed they were being disobedient to a critical commandment and that as a consequence they had no hope of  obtaining the fulness of eternal glory"

I believe just as today members can convince themselves of many things.  According to many recent polls 25%+ members believe that SSM should be allowed.

[Bobbieaware]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

And the saints also proved unwilling to live the Law of Consecration and their situations at times (as in Missouri) sometimes prevented it.  So God revoked that law too with its blessings.

" do you actually believe upwards of 95% of faithful Latter-day Saint men believed they were being disobedient to a critical commandment and that as a consequence they had no hope of  obtaining the fulness of eternal glory"

I believe just as today members can convince themselves of many things.  According to many recent polls 25%+ members believe that SSM should be allowed.

Did you actually read my post? You seem to have missed my main point.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 132:34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar 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.

It was a law in the sense that any commandment from God is part of His law. But not every commandment is given to every individual, and certainly not plurality of wives. 

There's no reason to think every man is obligated to practice polygamy any more than there is to think every man is under obligation to serve as a bishop or pull a handcart from Iowa City to Utah. 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

Posted in error. 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the saints also proved unwilling to live the Law of Consecration and their situations at times (as in Missouri) sometimes prevented it.  So God revoked that law too with its blessings.

" do you actually believe upwards of 95% of faithful Latter-day Saint men believed they were being disobedient to a critical commandment and that as a consequence they had no hope of  obtaining the fulness of eternal glory"

I believe just as today members can convince themselves of many things.  According to many recent polls 25%+ members believe that SSM should be allowed.

Plurality of wives fulfilled its purpose. There's no need for it today. And it would be unworkable today regardless.

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If she did, then I guess I did too. What is it?

My post of about 45 minutes ago (not the one you gave a repoint) proves that even if every man in the Church during Brigham Young's  day wanted to practice polygamy, it would have been impossible because there weren't enough women.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[stemelbow]

8 hours ago, guerreiro9 said:

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

This is a good way to approach it, I'd say.  The problem may come, though, when one reads from the saints at the time and learn that they thought there were some serious classification gains for those who enter into polygamy versus those who did not.  Those that did, at least it appears from the perspective of those that did, say themselves a step above those that did not.  The additional thought to this is those who did not may have hoped for Celestial but not the highest place in it.

 

Thanks for the thought, it's giving me more to look into.

Edited January 15, 2016 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

A point you may not have considered: It's estimated that in polygamy's heyday about 20% to 25% of LDS families were polygamous. So that would mean only about (I'm estimating) 5% to 10% of LDS men were polygamists. So do you actually believe upwards of 95% of faithful Latter-day Saint men believed they were being disobedient to a critical commandment and that as a consequence they had no hope of  obtaining the fulness of eternal glory? 

Another point to ponder: In order for every LDS man in Brigham Young's day to practice plural marriage, there would need to have been at least 2 eligible LDS women for every eligible LDS man (that's only 2 LDS women for every man, so having more than 2 wives would be out). But the problem is that the actual population split between LDS men and women was more like 50%/50%, so the possibility of every faithful LDS man having more than one wife -- so they could officially be considered polygamists -- was an impossibility. So on a practical level, the idea that every LDS man needed to practice polygamy in order to be exalted would have been IMPOSSIBLE to achieve! So the idea that God expected every LDS man to practice plural marriage is grossly unfair and inequitable...  that is unless God is partial and a believer in the law of the jungle.

 

 

As I recall the percentage was quite a bit higher during the Mormon reformation of the 1850s, but it greatly waned as the years went by and was, if memory serves, 10 percent or less by the time the practice was discontinued. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

My post of about 45 minutes ago (not the one you gave a repoint) proves that even if every man in the Church during Brigham Young's  day wanted to practice polygamy, it would have been impossible because there weren't enough women.

I responded to your more recent post erroneously, thinking I was responding to JLHPROF. Sorry for my confusion. 

I do like all three of your posts. 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Let's get started.  Who in the upper echelons of the Church during the years 1852-1904 did not practice polygamy?  That seems to get us down the road of who thought polygamy was important and how important.

[JAHS]

I think it's dangerous to take everything recorded in the JOD as absolute doctrine. There is the possibility of incorrect note taking or faulty memories of what exactly was said in such meetings where a recorder is taking notes in shorthand and then reproducing them later on in a report.

In Brigham Young's remarks about polygamy he said:

"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."

To me he seems to be saying that the saints need to at least believe in the doctrine of polygamy as part of their faith. To enter into polygamy means that we enter into the belief that polygamy is a doctrine of God. 

The JOD document reports;
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy."

What if the note taker reproduced it incorrectly and what Brigham Young actually said was:
"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, must accept the doctrine of polygamy."

 

[JAHS]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

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.

It is uncertain whether plural marriage will again be reinstated during the Millennium. The opinion of some, including that of a few past general authorities, is that it will be reinstated, and claim support for this from the following scripture in Isaiah which you referred to:

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. 
2. In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. (Isaiah 4:1-2)

However, in the original Hebrew text, verse one in Isaiah 4 is actually placed at the end of Chapter three, as shown below:

25. Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.
26. And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground. ( Isaiah 3:25-26)
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. 

If read in this context, rather than referring to plural marriage during the millennium, one could reason that the war that killed off most of the men, as discussed in chapter 3, left a ratio of women to men at about seven to one. So these women,were now desperate and have been humbled, and are willing to do anything to have the reproach of being childless removed, even to the point of sharing one husband among several of them. Therefore Isaiah 4:1 may not have meant to refer to activity during the Millennium. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Plurality of wives fulfilled its purpose. There's no need for it today. And it would be unworkable today regardless.

 

Probably.
But as to the topic of the thread, early leaders DID teach that it was necessary for exaltation.
Today we believe that to be wrong, but it was taught.

[Gray]

Whatever they thought about it, mathematically it just wouldn't work out

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Probably.
But as to the topic of the thread, early leaders DID teach that it was necessary for exaltation.
Today we believe that to be wrong, but it was taught.

I, too, am unsure why some Mormons seem to think it important to deny this obvious truth.

As you said, there are many other things Brigham Young taught that have been rejected by the modern Church, even though it is indisputable he said them.

Perhaps the doctrine of plural marriage strikes closer to home, as we do have Section 132 and the saints did practice plural marriage for half a century.

But really, what is the harm in acknowledging Church leaders did teach plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation and have since been superseded?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Let's get started.  Who in the upper echelons of the Church during the years 1852-1904 did not practice polygamy?  That seems to get us down the road of who thought polygamy was important and how important.

According to the not canonized revelation calling Heber J. Grant to be an apostle, it was required to preside.  And during the Mormon reformation Scott referred to there was a push to remove men from offices like Bishop and Stake President unless they entered polygamy.  There is even one story of a man who was a polygamist refusing to be tried in court by his Bishop for something because his Bishop was a monogamist - he appealed to the First Presidency (Pres Woodruff I think) and they sustained his interpretation that a monogamist Bishop couldn't sit in judgment on a polygamist.

 

But this is all in the past.

 

[consiglieri]

I think it would be interesting to find out why it is some Mormons feel it necessary to defend this position when the evidence is obviously against it.

What is it about past leaders teaching plural marriage is necessary for exaltation that must be dismissed?

[Tacenda]

“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further, and say that this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord had given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, November 14, 1855

“Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... [common background on Joseph Smith, skipped here] ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.”

- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, July 7, 1878

“God has told us Latter-day Saints that we shall be condemned if we do not enter into that principle [of polygamy]; and yet I have heard now and then (I am very glad to say that only a low such instances have come under my notice) a brother or a sister say, ‘I am a Latter-day Saint, but I do not believe in polygamy.' Oh, what an absurd expression! What an absurd idea! A person might as well say, ‘I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, but I do not believe in him.' One is just as consistent as the other.... If the doctrine of polygamy, as revealed to the Latter-day Saints, is not true, I would not give a fig for all your other revelations that came through Joseph Smith the Prophet; I would renounce the whole of them, because it is utterly impossible, according to the revelations that are contained in these books, to believe a part of them to be from the devil... The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle reject their salvations, they shall be damned, saith the Lord...”

- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, v. 17, pp. 224-225

“... [Joseph Smith taught] the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in the celestial glory.”

- William Clayton, Joseph Smith's secretary, Historical Record, v. 6, p. 226

“[If I] had not obeyed that command of God, concerning plural marriage, I believe that I would have been damned.”

- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, v. 23, p. 278

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 269

“Damnation was the awful penalty affixed to a refusal to obey this law [polygamy]. It became an acknowledged doctrine of the Church; it was indissolubly interwoven in the minds of its members with their hopes of eternal salvation and exaltation in the presence of God...”

- Millennial Star, v. 47, p. 711

“We, the first presidency and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beg to respectfully to Your Excellency the following facts:
We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come.”

- Reed Smoot Case, v. 1, p. 18

 “Yes, sir, President Woodruff, President Young, and President John Taylor, taught me and all the rest of the ladies here in Salt Lake that a man in order to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom must have more than one wife, that having more than one wife was a means of exaltation.”

- Temple Lot Case, p. 362

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Prophet Brigham Young

Prophet Joseph F. Smith

Apostle Orson Pratt

William Clayton, Joseph Smith's secretary

Apostle George Q. Cannon

“We, the first presidency and apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, beg to respectfully to Your Excellency the following facts:
We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or Celestial Marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come.”
 

I think that answers the OP pretty conclusively.
Thanks Tacenda!

It may no longer be taught as essential, but polygamy definitely WAS taught as essential in the past.  The First Presidency here clearly said that they taught it during the Reed Smoot case.  Pretty undeniable witness that it was taught.

Edited January 15, 2016 by JLHPROF

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

According to the not canonized revelation calling Heber J. Grant to be an apostle, it was required to preside.  And during the Mormon reformation Scott referred to there was a push to remove men from offices like Bishop and Stake President unless they entered polygamy.  There is even one story of a man who was a polygamist refusing to be tried in court by his Bishop for something because his Bishop was a monogamist - he appealed to the First Presidency (Pres Woodruff I think) and they sustained his interpretation that a monogamist Bishop couldn't sit in judgment on a polygamist.

 

But this is all in the past.

 

That's a great contribution, Prof, thanks.  This certainly suggests a very strong indication that polygamy was considered the realm of the more righteous among us, at the very least.  I wonder what it might have meant in eternity--a monogamist couldn't quite get to be a God, like a polygamist could?  Perhaps.