Did early Church leaders teach that polygamy was necessary for exaltation

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

It is interesting.  However, I think people are too eager to use these challenges to explain away things they don't agree with.

Like Adam-God for instance.  "Oh Brigham was misquoted in the journals" they like to say.  He wasn't misquoted 15+ times in the journals, Des. News, Manuscript History, Wilford Woodruffs journal, the lecture at the veil, and the Nuttall journal.

Is it possible that the Journals misquoted people sometimes?  Sure.  Fortunately they are not the only source for most of their teachings.

[JLHPROF]

13 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.

 

If this were the only quote that polygamy was necessary for exaltation I would agree.  But it isn't.  There are other less equivocating quotes too.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It is interesting.  However, I think people are too eager to use these challenges to explain away things they don't agree with.

Like Adam-God for instance.  "Oh Brigham was misquoted in the journals" they like to say.  He wasn't misquoted 15+ times in the journals, Des. News, Manuscript History, Wilford Woodruffs journal, the lecture at the veil, and the Nuttall journal.

Is it possible that the Journals misquoted people sometimes?  Sure.  Fortunately they are not the only source for most of their teachings.

Fair points. You'll notice I altered my post just a bit so as to make it seem not so absolutist.

But if anything, this should cause us to be cautious about dogmatizing on what we may find printed in Journal of Discourses.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If this were the only quote that polygamy was necessary for exaltation I would agree.  But it isn't.  There are other less equivocating quotes too.

So if Brigham was being equivocal on this matter (polygamy being required for exaltation) and if what you say is true, that other Church leaders were being less equivocal, whose preaching do we accept as normative for that day? Brigham's equivocal preaching or someone else's less equivocal preaching? Apparently, they weren't altogether united on the matter.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

24 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.

 

 

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

it seemed to make sense to the LDS historian who said it to Brian Hales on the podcast.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

This reminds me of the incident related by a man who is a member of the Mormon Battalion heritage organization. He was invited to come speak to a Utah history class in a public school. The teacher told him in advance that in speaking about the history of the Mormon Battalion, he must not mention God or religion.

This was sheer idiocy. How can one talk about the Mormon Battalion without discussing the religious beliefs and circumstances that motivated its formation?

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So if Brigham was being equivocal on this matter (polygamy being required for exaltation) and if what you say is true, that other Church leaders were being less equivocal, whose preaching do we accept as normative for that day? Brigham's equivocal preaching or someone else's less equivocal preaching? Apparently, they weren't united on the question.

Perhaps audience matters.  As when Joseph claimed he had but one wife in public meeting while he had many which the anointed quorum knew and the public didn't.  Perhaps Brigham was just being uncharacteristically subtle in that public discourse.    (Yes - stating that "the only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" at least in their faith is what passes for subtle from President Young).

You cannot ignore the under oath statement of the First Presidency during the Reed Smoot trial that Tacenda posted stating that they used to teach polygamy was necessary for exaltation.  I don't see why anyone would attempt to argue that a member of the First Presidency would lie under oath that they DID teach polygamy was needed for exaltation.

And there was nothing equivocal about Joseph F. Smith teaching:

• “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.

So was ever it taught as necessary by early leaders?  Yes.  Right here in this quoted discourse and in other places.
Was this confirmed as having been taught as necessary by the First Presidency?  Yes.  At the Reed Smoot hearings.
Is it still taught today?  No.

Not sure what debate over whether it was taught there can still be?

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps audience matters.  As when Joseph claimed he had but one wife in public meeting while he had many which the anointed quorum knew and the public didn't.  Perhaps Brigham was just being uncharacteristically subtle in that public discourse.    (Yes - stating that "the only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" at least in their faith is what passes for subtle from President Young).

You cannot ignore the under oath statement of the First Presidency during the Reed Smoot trial that Tacenda posted stating that they used to teach polygamy was necessary for exaltation.  I don't see why anyone would attempt to argue that a member of the First Presidency would lie under oath that they DID teach polygamy was needed for exaltation.
 

Well, if its the quote I'm thinking of, she was expressing hearsay, no? The trouble with hearsay is that it's not the best evidence. She could well have misunderstood what she heard preached.

Also, consider the wording in one of the quotes in Tacenda's post:

Quote

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...”
 

[Emphasis mine]

A "refusal to obey" would mean that if a man were called to enter in polygamy and he refused to comply, his exaltation was jeopardized. That's not the same as saying one would be damned for not being a polygamist if he had never had the calling or the opportunity or the means to do so (as was apparently the case with most of the pioneer-era Church members).

 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, if its the quote I'm thinking of, she was expressing hearsay, no? The trouble with hearsay is that it's not the best evidence. She could well have misunderstood what she heard preached.

 

I don't think the minutes of the Reed Smoot trials are hearsay?

• “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

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think the minutes of the Reed Smoot trials are hearsay?

• “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

What is missing from this is a direct statement that they taught that a man who did not possess the means or opportunity or was never called to live in polygamy would be damned for not having done so.

[consiglieri]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Appeal to authority fallacy.

This reminds me of the incident related by a man who is a member of the Mormon Battalion heritage organization. He was invited to come speak to a Utah history class in a public school. The teacher told him in advance that in speaking about the history of the Mormon Battalion, he must not mention God or religion.

This was sheer idiocy. How can one talk about the Mormon Battalion without discussing the religious beliefs and circumstances that motivated its formation?

This is strange coming from the man who constantly appeals to authority to determine what is and isn't true.

All I am saying is that it makes no difference whether we think something said by a 19th Century Church leader "makes sense."

It does not change what they said.

Maybe we don't agree with it, and maybe we have changed the teaching in the meantime.

But the fact we think it doesn't "makes sense" in no way changes what was said, or what was meant by it.

[consiglieri]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is missing from this is a direct statement that they taught that a man who did not possess the means or opportunity or was never called to live in polygamy would be damned for not having done so.

What do you think the word "necessity" means, Scott?

[carbon dioxide]

The issue is not that polygamy is required to exaltation but obedience.  We are expected to follow the commandments and if God commands polygamy, we are to be obedient to it.  If God commands no polygamy, we are to be obedient to that instruction.  We are not free to pick and choose what commandments we will keep and which ones we will not and expect exaltation.  Polygamy by itself means nothing.  Muslims today practice polygamy in many parts of the world but they are not going to be exalted for it. 

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

The issue is not that polygamy is required to exaltation but obedience.  We are expected to follow the commandments and if God commands polygamy, we are to be obedient to it.  If God commands no polygamy, we are to be obedient to that instruction.  We are not free to pick and choose what commandments we will keep and which ones we will not and expect exaltation.  Polygamy by itself means nothing.  Muslims today practice polygamy in many parts of the world but they are not going to be exalted for it. 

This gets back to my fundamental question.

Given the fact it is indisputable that 19th Century Church leaders did teach plural marriage was a "necessity" to exaltation, why is it some 21st Century Mormons want to deny they did?

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is missing from this is a direct statement that they taught that a man who did not possess the means or opportunity or was never called to live in polygamy would be damned for not having done so.

Slightly twitchy goal post.
The question at hand is whether exaltation (top degree, eternal increase, Godhood etc) was ever taught by leaders to require polygamy.  It has been shown that it was taught.
The question was not if everyone else would be damned.

[carbon dioxide]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.
 

I would agree with this statement as the doctrine of "plural marriage" would require polygamy.  One can't have a plural marriage with just one wife.  But I don't think he is correct in his view that exaltation must come by more than one wife.  D&C 132 only indicates that one wife is required.  One can have more than one wife in that section but the base requirement is being sealed to one wife.  So it may be true that some leaders taught it does not mean they were correct on it. 

Joseph Fielding Smith: "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-204)

I accept this to be correct.  If having one wife is not enough for exaltation but one must have two or more, the standard works should declare it.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This is strange coming from the man who constantly appeals to authority to determine what is and isn't true.

Bad rap.

What I have said is that in evaluating conflicting attestations between anointed servants of God and anonymous faultfinders on a message board, I give more credibility to the former. I stand by that.
 

Quote

 

All I am saying is that it makes no difference whether we think something said by a 19th Century Church leader "makes sense."

It does not change what they said.

Maybe we don't agree with it, and maybe we have changed the teaching in the meantime.

But the fact we think it doesn't "makes sense" in no way changes what was said, or what was meant by it.

 

I don't agree it has been conclusively established that early Church leaders taught that no man could be exalted unless he practiced polygamy. There are quotations to the contrary. And actual conditions in the Church (the majority of the members were not polygamists) do not support the assumption that this was a widely held, accepted or promulgated belief.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Slightly twitchy goal post.
The question at hand is whether exaltation (top degree, eternal increase, Godhood etc) was ever taught by leaders to require polygamy.  It has been shown that it was taught.
The question was not if everyone else would be damned.

If one could not receive those things you list, it would amount to being damned.

But I will rephrase, if you like, and say it would amount to not being exalted.

 

Edited January 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree with this statement as the doctrine of "plural marriage" would require polygamy.  One can't have a plural marriage with just one wife.  But I don't think he is correct in his view that exaltation must come by more than one wife.  D&C 132 only indicates that one wife is required.  One can have more than one wife in that section but the base requirement is being sealed to one wife.  So it may be true that some leaders taught it does not mean they were correct on it. 

Here it is helpful to understand that "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" referred to in D&C 132 was synonymous with "plural marriage."

It remained so up until the first half of the 20th Century when J. Reuben Clark decided to conflate the two.

 

Quote

 

 D&C 132:4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

 5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.

 6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

What do you think the word "necessity" means, Scott?

Necessity of what?

Quote

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.”

There are two antecedents here: polygamy and celestial marriage. They are not altogether synonymous.

[consiglieri]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't agree it has been conclusively established that early Church leaders taught that no man could be exalted unless he practiced polygamy. There are quotations to the contrary. And actual conditions in the Church (the majority of the members were not polygamists) do not support the assumption that this was a widely held, accepted or promulgated belief.

You are changing the goal post again.

The issue isn't whether this was "a widely held, accepted or promulgated belief."

The issue is whether it was taught by 19th Century Church leaders.

And it was.

Why is this such a problem?

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree with this statement as the doctrine of "plural marriage" would require polygamy.  One can't have a plural marriage with just one wife.  But I don't think he is correct in his view that exaltation must come by more than one wife.  D&C 132 only indicates that one wife is required.  One can have more than one wife in that section but the base requirement is being sealed to one wife.  So it may be true that some leaders taught it does not mean they were correct on it.

Joseph Fielding Smith: "It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-204)

I accept this to be correct.  If having one wife is not enough for exaltation but one must have two or more, the standard works should declare it.

 

Once again, you are arguing whether polygamy is required for exaltation.  The Church today is clear that it is not.

The question of the OP is whether any early leaders ever taught that polygamy was required for exaltation.  They did.
The teaching has changed.

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Necessity of what?

The "necessity" in the quote provided:

 

Quote

 

I don't think the minutes of the Reed Smoot trials are hearsay?

• “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

 

• To this quote, you responded:

Quote

What is missing from this is a direct statement that they taught that a man who did not possess the means or opportunity or was never called to live in polygamy would be damned for not having done so.

I then asked you:

Quote

What do you think the word "necessity" means, Scott?

It seems obvious it means it is necessary to "man's highest exaltation in the life to come."

I mean, that is what it says, after all.

Again, why is this such an important issue for you to defend at such cost?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.

 

And apparently George Watts (sp?) improved upon BY's words as he saw fit.  They have compared the shorthand to the final product.  It often dorsn't match and it is obviously intentional.  Not saying he intentionally changed the meaning of it, but appears to have desired to make it sound better, more flowery etc.  haven't read the article yet, but I have been told that is more or less what they say...with proper documentation etc.  They are working through retranscribing the shorthand, but don't know what has been done or what can be done (how extensive notes are).

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I accept this to be correct.  If having one wife is not enough for exaltation but one must have two or more, the standard works should declare it.

 

It used to be claimed that D&C 131 did declare it.  Then the definition of the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage  was adjusted.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It used to be claimed that D&C 131 did declare it.  Then the definition of the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage  was adjusted.

Or simply understood more thoroughly and accurately perhaps. Line upon line, and all that.