Did early Church leaders teach that polygamy was necessary for exaltation

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Here again you are making the mistake of arguing theologically rather than historically.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

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).

It's fascinating to read in just the first couple of paragraphs in the article how extensive Watts's tampering really was.

As one whose livelihood often involves attending and writing news reports of public speeches, I can certainly understand the temptation to do this. Most of us don't speak the way we write, and it can be difficult to convey something coherent by writing a speaker's words just as they fell from his lips. Moreover, most people are overly wordy in speaking off-the-cuff. I try to get the message across with a combination of direct quotes and paraphrasing, but apparently back then, they did not have the scruples we do today against passing off a paraphrase as a direct quote.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Here again you are making the mistake of arguing theologically rather than historically.

Um, I haven't conceded that it is a "mistake" to consider theology in discussing a church's history. I've argued against that notion, in fact.

You have a habit of repeating assertions without taking cognizance of counter-arguments that have already been made

 

Edited January 16, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The "necessity" in the quote provided:

 

• To this quote, you responded:

I then asked you:

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?

It's because I'm conscious of the need to read for comprehension. It's one of my faults, I guess.

[Zakuska]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Necessity of what?

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

The "it" in the second part of the compound sentence makes the "polygamy OR celestial marriage" synonymous in the first.

[sunstoned]

15 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.

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."

 

BY took girls to wife who were 20 and even 30 years younger than him. By his actions we know where is heart was.   How can anyone honestly think this was from god?

Edited January 16, 2016 by sunstoned

[sunstoned]

12 hours 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.

What is absurd is that you ignore the teachings of BY on this matter.  It doesn't matter how many followed his teachings or not.  He clearly taught the polygamy was essential for salvation in the top of the celestial kingdom.  Most people didn't follow his screwy teachings on Adam God either.  But that doesn't mean he didn't teach and promote them.  

[sunstoned]

8 hours 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.

Amen.  Thanks for the reality check.

[halconero]

If you don't mind, Scott I think this conversation can go further if we discuss why or why not polygamy would be required for exaltation. We're all looking at the same journals, letters, etc with differing opinions as to whether or not it is, but with little justification for the why behind either opinion.

Baptism is justified for its cleansing power in making the recipient as cleans as God is to withstand his presence.

The endowment prepares the recipient for resurrection among other things.

The exalting or saving reasons behind many ordinances are explained. Why might polygamy be or not be a saving/exalting ordinance?

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

If you don't mind, Scott I think this conversation can go further if we discuss why or why not polygamy would be required for exaltation. We're all looking at the same journals, letters, etc with differing opinions as to whether or not it is, but with little justification for the why behind either opinion.

Baptism is justified for its cleansing power in making the recipient as cleans as God is to withstand his presence.

The endowment prepares the recipient for resurrection among other things.

The exalting or saving reasons behind many ordinances are explained. Why might polygamy be or not be a saving/exalting ordinance?

If people can be exalted without being polygamists -- and it appears this must be the case -- then the answer obviously is it has no inherent salvific power other than that which comes from obedience if and when God commands someone to live it. 

In fact, I can see no substantial purpose for it beyond what is expressed in Jacob: a temporary means by which God raises up seed into Himself. 

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

BY took girls to wife who were 20 and even 30 years younger than him. By his actions we know where is heart was.   How can anyone honestly think this was from god?

Of course one of the reasons for polygamy was to "raise seed". So they had to be young enough to have children. Besides that have you seen his wives? I don't think he did it just for the sex.

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

BY took girls to wife who were 20 and even 30 years younger than him. By his actions we know where is heart was.   How can anyone honestly think this was from god?

Yeah, how could a God that called a 14 year old girl who was his spirit daughter to give birth to his only begotten son possibly be ok with younger wives and older husbands.  He surely would have waited till Mary was 18 to have her give birth to his son the Savior of the world.  And he certainly wouldn't have chosen her since she was already betrothed to a man who was probably many years her senior, and who may have already been married previously.

God could never allow for such things. /sarcasm

Edited January 16, 2016 by JLHPROF

[halconero]

I'm curious to know where you got Mary's age from.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, halconero said:

I'm curious to know where you got Mary's age from.

Oh, you know the old scholarly estimates based in Jewish law.  Not from a direct proof reference.

But in the absence of proof of exception, it's not unreasonable to presume traditions were followed.

[RevTestament]

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 7:52 AM, JAHS said:

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.

Isaiah 4:1 speaks of the 7 churches/women of Revelation 2-5, and does refer to the "Millennium." You are right to connect it to Isaiah 3 and the "her" spoken of as the daughter of Zion. This further shows that the seven "women" are symbolic rather than literal, and refer to "churches." Therefore the verse is not speaking of the reinstitution of "temporal polygamy."

No one here has seemed to touch much on what Joseph Smith said. While he defended polygamy as "exalting" and maybe even to be like God we must embrace it, I don't believe he said anywhere that one must enter into polygamy to inherit the celestial kingdom. For what it is worth, I flatly reject the notion that one must temporally marry more than one wife here on earth to be like God. I believe the GAs got that notion from JS, but I don't believe it was a revelation pertaining to temporal polygamy. However, spiritually this is what God does. He calls men from all the various churches unto Him. Thus the ten horns of Revelation which fought against the lamb will see the error of their ways and finally turn against the harlot to "burn her with fire." In other words these various peoples will see they have been led astray and will turn to fully embrace the gospel, and thereby "marry" God or in other words enter a covenant with Him to be His servants and "help meet" like the covenant of a woman marrying a man. The whole temporal thing is merely a reflection of the celestial order as reflected in Isaiah 4:1.

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

BY took girls to wife who were 20 and even 30 years younger than him. By his actions we know where is heart was.   How can anyone honestly think this was from god?

I think you are creating God in your own image to give your own distaste divine sanction.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

No one here has seemed to touch much on what Joseph Smith said. While he defended polygamy as "exalting" and maybe even to be like God we must embrace it, I don't believe he said anywhere that one must enter into polygamy to inherit the celestial kingdom.

That's because it isn't necessary to inherit the Celestial Kingdom.  Marriage isn't even necessary to inherit the Celestial Kingdom.

But exaltation is a little more that salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.
Which is the big problem with the Fair Mormon page on the subject - it produces lots of quotes showing that polygamy isn't necessary to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom but then falsely uses that to show the early leaders didn't teach polygamy was needed for exaltation.

Edited January 16, 2016 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Of course one of the reasons for polygamy was to "raise seed". So they had to be young enough to have children. Besides that have you seen his wives? I don't think he did it just for the sex.

b

You don't respect women much, I take it. 

You forgot to further insult us with "I can only handle one [because women are by nature difficult or unpleasant ]"

[Teancum]

On January 15, 2016 at 11:57 PM, 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.

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

Ahhh......

 

the hoops LDS apologists must jump through to defend so much that is simply on a rational level undefensible.   It is is weary and tiresome task.   Your thread on the Greg Smith blog on what to do when we think we have revelation that differs from what church leaders teach as well as this thread are fine exhibits.   Most rational people  would read Greg Smith's comments as well as the LDS leaders he quotes and scratch their head in puzzlement.   Some would call it a cult mentality.  Nobody would ever make decisions for any other area of their life with such a pardigm including most LDS.   It is liberating to understand that such paradigms are simply nonsense.  

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

You don't respect women much, I take it. 

You forgot to further insult us with "I can only handle one [because women are by nature difficult or unpleasant ]"

Sorry. Just going for a joke......Didn't work.

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because it isn't necessary to inherit the Celestial Kingdom.  Marriage isn't even necessary to inherit the Celestial Kingdom.

But exaltation is a little more that salvation in the Celestial Kingdom.
Which is the big problem with the Fair Mormon page on the subject - it produces lots of quotes showing that polygamy isn't necessary to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom but then falsely uses that to show the early leaders didn't teach polygamy was needed for exaltation.

Thanks for your thoughts. You are of course welcome to believe what you wish, but I will show that one does not need to enter "temporal polygamy" to be exalted. I personally believe D&C 132 is teaching "celestial marriage" or the law of the priesthood. This is not "temporal polygamy." Christ taught this principle in the parable of the 10 virgins and the bridegroom. The virgins of course represent the churches. It is again taught in Isaiah. It is again taught in Revelation in the 10 horns which finally see the false prophet and turn to the lamb. As our High Priest, Christ invited the "churches" or tribes of the Israelites unto Him. I can elaborate further, but I think I have made my point. Marriage to God is not temporal marriage. As God's only begotten Son, Christ is covenanted to the Father in a familial relationship. Certain GAs like Parley Pratt thought about it all too literally or in more "temporal" terms. Heavenly Father did not have relations with Mary/Miriam or the like. Christ was already the Son of the Father by covenant when He was sent to be born of Miriam...that is exactly why He was sent. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with polygamy except that it is illegal, and tends to be misunderstood and abused. But the misunderstanding has generally caused a lot of grief and bad press, and abusers such as Warren Jeffs. With SCOTUS willing to undermine state authority and rewrite state laws on the issue of marriage, it will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 You are of course welcome to believe what you wish, but I will show that one does not need to enter "temporal polygamy" to be exalted.

Not what I was saying.  I have not said you need to enter polygamy to be exalted.
I have said that that was taught by early leaders, but it is no longer taught.

But the differentiation between Celestial salvation and exaltation is still an important distinction.

Quote

. I personally believe D&C 132 is teaching "celestial marriage" or the law of the priesthood. This is not "temporal polygamy."

So do many people.  I don't see how reading comprehension can lead to that conclusion when the text is so plain.  But it seems to be a common belief.

Edited January 16, 2016 by JLHPROF

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not what I was saying.  I have not said you need to enter polygamy to be exalted.
I have said that that was taught by early leaders, but it is no longer taught.

OK. Well, I agree.

Quote

But the differentiation between Celestial salvation and exaltation is still an important distinction.

Hmm. Not quite sure about that. I understand what you are saying, but to a certain extent everyone saved in the Celestial Kingdom is "exalted" with eternal life. But yes, I agree that not everyone in the Celestial Kingdom has the same exaltation. What I am saying is that I don't believe entering temporal polygamous marriages will necessarily alter your exaltation one iota or has any impact at all. I suppose it could if you were commanded to do so like Emma was.

Quote

So do many people. I don't see how reading comprehension can lead to that conclusion when the text is so plain. But it seems to be a common belief.

The text is plain to the extent that it does not promise anything extra to those who enter polygamous marriages - it is something that is up to them. The law of celestial marriage is met with even one marriage covenant....

I am sealed to my wife in the temple tho, so I guess we have our bases covered

[Zakuska]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You don't respect women much, I take it. 

You forgot to further insult us with "I can only handle one [because women are by nature difficult or unpleasant ]"

By all accounts Adams first wife fits your discription of unpleasantness a real screech owl she was.

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 I understand what you are saying, but to a certain extent everyone saved in the Celestial Kingdom is "exalted" with eternal life. But yes, I agree that not everyone in the Celestial Kingdom has the same exaltation.

Exaltation is to rule and reign with eternal increase.  Those in the lowest degree of the Celestial Kingdom do not rule and reign but are ministering angels, and therefore are not exalted but only saved.

Quote

What I am saying is that I don't believe entering temporal polygamous marriages will necessarily alter your exaltation one iota or has any impact at all.

I am less convinced of that than you are but you are hardly unique in that belief.  Most members (who actually know anything about polygamy & D&C 132) agree with you.