consiglieri Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 So why is Brian Hales, of all people, trying to deny this? 2
Tacenda Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: 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. I can't take too much credit, saw these in a conversation on FB about the same question.
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I'm also curious if in the mind's of our leaders today it is thought that one must accept that polygamy was a commandment of God for us to be truly faithful to the point of exaltation. I'm curious if someone like me, who tends to think polygamy was less about God-inspired and more about misunderstanding and misimpression, is doomed to something less because I just haven't been able to accept it is God-inspired.
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: So why is Brian Hales, of all people, trying to deny this? I thought his denial was that the statements about being exalted for the polygamists was for their time and did not suggest we in modern times need to accept the principle.
JLHPROF Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 6 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I wonder what it might have meant in eternity--a monogamist couldn't quite get to be a God, like a polygamist could? Perhaps. This always seems like a silly concern to me. If polygamy is required for Godhood, a righteous monogamist would simply be given the opportunity to become a polygamist by the Lord. God doesn't deny righteous desires if we are worthy. 1
Tacenda Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I thought his denial was that the statements about being exalted for the polygamists was for their time and did not suggest we in modern times need to accept the principle. I think this also, Brian Hales has polygamous family that he's probably trying to get through to.
JLHPROF Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 11 minutes ago, consiglieri said: So why is Brian Hales, of all people, trying to deny this? Because as good a scholar as he is, he is still something of an apologist. Those quotes Tacenda posted are in the historical record. 1
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: This always seems like a silly concern to me. If polygamy is required for Godhood, a righteous monogamist would simply be given the opportunity to become a polygamist by the Lord. God doesn't deny righteous desires if we are worthy. Well we say that, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be said about the attitudes of polygamists back in the day about those who weren't polygamists.
JLHPROF Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Well we say that, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to be said about the attitudes of polygamists back in the day about those who weren't polygamists. The attitude I think was probably because the monogamists were seen as unwilling to accept one of Gods commandments. The same attitudes are seen today on other topics.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) 2 hours 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. The claim in dispute is not that they thought it was important. The claim is that they taught that no one could be exalted without it. That seems absurd on its face, given the sheer numbers and percentages who did not practice it. Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
stemelbow Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The claim in dispute is not that they thought it was important. The claim is that they taught that no one could be exalted without it. That seems absurd on its face, given the sheer numbers and percentages who did not practice it. If it's absurd on the face of it then why is there disagreement. For instance JLHProf suggests it's silly to deny it was taught. You say it's absurd for him to hold his position. I say there must be more for us to discuss, as JLHProf provided for us to get to the bottom of this.
phaedrus ut Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 On this page you can find a collection of 34 quotations from church leaders saying that polygamy was necessary for exaltation. The list includes Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Heber Kimball, John Taylor and more than a dozen more. The original page disappeared so I'm linking to the archived version of it. Since 1904 there are many examples of church leaders saying the opposite but saying it wasn't taught almost universally in the 1800's I believe is incorrect. 1
Senator Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The claim in dispute is not that they thought it was important. The claim is that they taught that no one could be exalted without it. That seems absurd on its face, given the sheer numbers and percentages who did not practice it. Few be that find the strait and narrow. That's about par for the course. I don't see that as a reason to discredit the claim of it being taught.
halconero Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The attitude I think was probably because the monogamists were seen as unwilling to accept one of Gods commandments. The same attitudes are seen today on other topics. I think it is possible that arrogance regarding polygamy could've been a factor in its downfall as well. I'm going to show my cards here and say that if the Saints had been living at a certain level of humility, righteousness, care, love, and by the Spirit and Word of Revelation that temporal polygamy would not have been abolished. Yet the same arrogance, selfishness, lasciviousness, greed, and doubt which caused the failure of Zion's Camp to gain the 500 volunteers the Lord asked, to regain Missouri, which had Brother Joseph martyred, and which caused the end of the United Order cause the loss of this. I believe the fallout to be significant, and that we as a collective body have lost light and knowledge regarding the nature of God, the mechanisms of exaltation, new scripture, as well as even deeper and more lasting promises. 1
Senator Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 4 minutes ago, halconero said: I think it is possible that arrogance regarding polygamy could've been a factor in its downfall as well. I'm going to show my cards here and say that if the Saints had been living at a certain level of humility, righteousness, care, love, and by the Spirit and Word of Revelation that temporal polygamy would not have been abolished. Yet the same arrogance, selfishness, lasciviousness, greed, and doubt which caused the failure of Zion's Camp to gain the 500 volunteers the Lord asked, to regain Missouri, which had Brother Joseph martyred, and which caused the end of the United Order cause the loss of this. I believe the fallout to be significant, and that we as a collective body have lost light and knowledge regarding the nature of God, the mechanisms of exaltation, new scripture, as well as even deeper and more lasting promises. Ouch!
consiglieri Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The claim in dispute is not that they thought it was important. The claim is that they taught that no one could be exalted without it. That seems absurd on its face, given the sheer numbers and percentages who did not practice it. You may be right about this, Scott. But it seems your argument is not with us, but with the Church leaders who unequivocally did teach such a thing.
JLHPROF Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The claim in dispute is not that they thought it was important. The claim is that they taught that no one could be exalted without it. That seems absurd on its face, given the sheer numbers and percentages who did not practice it. Direct quotes showing them teaching polygamy was necessary for exaltation have been provided. The First Presidency admitted it in the Reed Smoot trial quote Tacenda posted. Phaedrus' link is also full of incontrovertible records of the teaching. It may not be necessary for exaltation but what is really absurd is to pretend they never taught it was in the face of records of them teaching that it was. Edited January 15, 2016 by JLHPROF
consiglieri Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Let me go ahead and add this. I listened to Brian Hales on a podcast last year with two other historians. Brian Hales was making the argument that no Church leader has ever said that plural marriage is necessary for exaltation at all times of the earth's history and for all peoples. He cited to the Book of Mormon as an example, saying there is nothing in there about plural marriage being necessary for exaltation, and in fact quite the reverse. (Of course, the Book of Mormon really doesn't distinguish levels of salvation including exaltation, either, but I digress.) Brian argued that the peoples in the Book of Mormon were not prohibited from exaltation for failing to practice plural marriage because that wouldn't be "fair" and wouldn't "make sense." His argument was so thin, and by that I mean so narrowly drawn, that the two other historians immediately misunderstood what he was saying and were surprised Brian was unaware of the quotes that have already been mentioned in this thread. Brian said he was aware of them and reiterated his position that no LDS leaders ever said plural marriage was necessary for exaltation at all times and for all people. Finally one of the other two historians clued into the distinction Brian was making. I'm not sure the other historian ever got it. The historian who did get what Brian was saying politely told Brian that was one of the problems with his methodology--that he tended to approach the subject of plural marriage theologically instead of historically. (I thought that summed it up nicely.) But it sounds like something similar may be going on in this thread, so I thought I would point it out in hopes it helps eliminate some confusion.
juliann Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Perhaps I missed it because of skimming posts....but I haven't seen any mention of the those who made polygamy possible and practiced it in the greatest numbers....women. Until that happens there can never be a credible discussion of polygamy. And the Isaiah verse? It is rejected as applying to Mormon polygamy in the Institute manual. 2
consiglieri Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 8 minutes ago, juliann said: Perhaps I missed it because of skimming posts....but I haven't seen any mention of the those who made polygamy possible and practiced it in the greatest numbers....women. Until that happens there can never be a credible discussion of polygamy. And the Isaiah verse? It is rejected as applying to Mormon polygamy in the Institute manual. I agree with you about the Isaiah passage and frequently find myself disabusing Mormons of the notion that it has anything to do with polygamy, but rather a prophesy of the destruction resulting in the slaying of most of the adult males in Israel. I find interesting your assertion that no credible discussion of polygamy can happen without mentioning the women. I agree with you on this, and wonder what such a discussion would look like. What are your thoughts?
Scott Lloyd Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 9 hours ago, Calm said: 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 Thanks for this link. This is a fascinating and very important treatise. It may be that the head-scratching, bickering and puzzling we do over what Brigham Young said regarding this or that subject may all be driven by less-than-accurate reports of his sermons.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: Let me go ahead and add this. I listened to Brian Hales on a podcast last year with two other historians. Brian Hales was making the argument that no Church leader has ever said that plural marriage is necessary for exaltation at all times of the earth's history and for all peoples. He cited to the Book of Mormon as an example, saying there is nothing in there about plural marriage being necessary for exaltation, and in fact quite the reverse. (Of course, the Book of Mormon really doesn't distinguish levels of salvation including exaltation, either, but I digress.) Brian argued that the peoples in the Book of Mormon were not prohibited from exaltation for failing to practice plural marriage because that wouldn't be "fair" and wouldn't "make sense." His argument was so thin, and by that I mean so narrowly drawn, that the two other historians immediately misunderstood what he was saying and were surprised Brian was unaware of the quotes that have already been mentioned in this thread. Brian said he was aware of them and reiterated his position that no LDS leaders ever said plural marriage was necessary for exaltation at all times and for all people. Finally one of the other two historians clued into the distinction Brian was making. I'm not sure the other historian ever got it. The historian who did get what Brian was saying politely told Brian that was one of the problems with his methodology--that he tended to approach the subject of plural marriage theologically instead of historically. (I thought that summed it up nicely.) But it sounds like something similar may be going on in this thread, so I thought I would point it out in hopes it helps eliminate some confusion. If it's the history of a church that is under discussion -- especially the Church of Jesus Christ -- I don't see how a historian can accurately, thoroughly and responsibly approach the subject without considering theology in the process.Theology, after all, underpins the very existence of a church. Your objection makes no sense, consig. Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: You may be right about this, Scott. But it seems your argument is not with us, but with the Church leaders who unequivocally did teach such a thing. Unequivocally? What is the phrase "polygamists in their hearts" if it is not equivocation? Moreover, anyone with reasonable intelligence back then could have noted the obvious fact that the majority of the Church membership were not living in polygamy and that there was no reasonable expectation that they ever would or even could. It would have been absolutely senseless, then, to tell the majority of the Church they could not be exalted without plural marriage. Ergo, the Church leaders must have had an intended meaning somewhat diferent from what is being ascribed to them by critics living a century-and-a-half later. Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd
consiglieri Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Unequivocally? What is the phrase "polygamists in their hearts" if it is not equivocation? Moreover, anyone with reasonable intelligence back then could have noted the obvious fact that the majority of the Church membership were not living in polygamy and that there was no reasonable expectation that they ever would or even could. It would have been absolutely senseless, then, to tell the majority of the Church they could not be exalted without plural marriage. Ergo, the Church leaders must have had an intended meaning somewhat diferent from what is being ascribed to them by critics living a century-and-a-half later. My problem with this line of reasoning is that it is theologically driven, rather than historically. Just because it doesn't make sense to you that 19th Century LDS leaders said such things does not change the fact that they said such things. This is what that historian on the podcast with Brian Hales meant when she said his problem is that his arguments are theological and not historical.
consiglieri Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If it's the history of a Church that is under discussion -- especially the Church of Jesus Christ -- I don't see how a historian can accurately, thoroughly and responsibly approach the subject without considering theology in the process.Theology, after all, underpins the very existence of a church. Your objection makes no sense, consig. it seemed to make sense to the LDS historian who said it to Brian Hales on the podcast.
Recommended Posts