Did early Church leaders teach that polygamy was necessary for exaltation

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

CFR? and I mean with the standard works...

No sense in dragging up all the modern quotations for me.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

CFR? and I mean with the standard works...

No sense in dragging up all the modern quotations for me.

D&C 132

 16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

 

So - saved in the Celestial Kingdom as saved angels, not exalted Gods.

Edited January 16, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Yep but you should drop the sarcasm and critically think about this.  You may be surprised at your conclusion if you can get past your dogma.

[juliann]

On 1/15/2016 at 11:27 AM, consiglieri said:

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?

There are several problems. First, there is no generic "polygamy." It changed as it went along. For instance, once it became the way things were women wouldn't have to battle with the loss of respect and revulsion, they likely gained status because of it being an elite population. I suspect their would not be as much questioning. But there is still little differentiation other than Nauvoo vs Utah polygamy when it is discussed. 

There is good reason polygamy is only seen through the eyes of men. It was taught as being a man's right and duty to expand his kingdom through women. We acknowledge the original attempts at dynasty making, we just avoid acknowledging how that positioned women...which of course  was not unusual for the times. Women such as Eliza, on the other hand, saw it as a means to escape the curse of Eve. Even BY used this belief. This was actually something quite unique...nowhere else could women escape that curse, even to the point of being denied pain relief during childbirth into the 20th century. But their way of coping was to advise each other not to have affection for their husbands, only their children. That broke the curse that said their desires would only be to their husbands who would then rule over them. 

To continue to talk only about men's exaltation is to remain in the Nauvoo dynasty making era. And compared to the women who were involved, men were a small minority. Unless one holds onto 19th century culture, it wasn't really about men. So we leap frog from a woman's politically and socially repressive 19th century to the Celestial Kingdom which avoids all the messy real life stuff in between....and those no long repressed women. 

Polygamy today would "emasculate" men not exalt them. Who is to say that is not its real purpose?  

 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

To continue to talk only about men's exaltation is to remain in the Nauvoo dynasty making era.

 

Ah...the good old days! 

[Calm]

On January 15, 2016 at 8:52 AM, JAHS said:

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. 

And the description of the marriage relationshiop---name only (and possibly "sperm donor" if "reproach" is "childlessness" and not being unmarried or unconnected to a family head due to fathers or husbands and even uncles or brothers who could take them in being killed)---is hardly one the Church would teach as appropriate.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Calm

[halconero]

Here's an idea that I've seen tossed around, and one connected to the idea of polygamy being an exalting oridnance:

Is Christ sealed to the Father?

[JAHS]

24 minutes ago, halconero said:

Here's an idea that I've seen tossed around, and one connected to the idea of polygamy being an exalting oridnance:

Is Christ sealed to the Father?

I think we can definitely say He was born in the covenant. 

[halconero]

That's my thought as well. Given that the sealing is between parents rather than a single parent the question is then raised regarding the sealed motherhood of Jesus, and the implications of being born in the covenant. Then the rabbit hole leads down to whether or not exaltation entails the enacting of another Plan of Salvation within another Eternity, thereby necessitating the mortal incarnation of another Saviour.

The possible implications of that with regards to polygamy are significant.

[halconero]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

The complication here is that there is proof that around the time of Jesus in Hellenized Judea that people often married at older ages. This articles sets a bottom limit for Jewish law with regards to the age of betrothal, and doesn't actually say much about when people were customarily betrothed. We see the same thing with Medieval marriage laws. Sure, marriages at age 12 could occur legally, but such was uncommon among the nobility and exceedingly rare outside of them, and except in extreme cases where alliances needed to be forged or familial connections set up.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, halconero said:

Here's an idea that I've seen tossed around, and one connected to the idea of polygamy being an exalting oridnance:

Is Christ sealed to the Father?

Yes.  Actually, to be more precise, Christ would be born in the covenant, not sealed, as his parents were married.

Edited January 17, 2016 by JLHPROF

[halconero]

Already expressed by JAHS, but if everyone (from the faithful perspective) agrees that Christ was sealed to the Father then the debate really needs to shift to whether or not He was born in the covenant or sealed after. Given my recent studies on the Asherah, and Nephi's increasingly obvious vision of Mary as the Asherah (or of the Asherah as Mary) my gut feeling is that He was born in the covenant.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, halconero said:

Already expressed by JAHS, but if everyone (from the faithful perspective) agrees that Christ was sealed to the Father then the debate really needs to shift to whether or not He was born in the covenant or sealed after. Given my recent studies on the Asherah, and Nephi's increasingly obvious vision of Mary as the Asherah (or of the Asherah as Mary) my gut feeling is that He was born in the covenant.

Additionally, if Brigham Young was right and Christ was conceived as all men, then for Mary to not be in the marriage covenant with Heavenly Father would be an unthinkable situation.

[halconero]

Not only Brigham Young, but Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. Even if the physical act of conception is ambiguous, and I would argue that it is, the notion that Jesus is the genetic son of the Father is something of a core doctrine/value of the church, indicating he was conceived through sexual reproduction (I use that term not to indicate intercourse, but reproduction through the combination of genetic material from two individuals). For this to occur outside of a marriage covenant would then indeed be unthinkable.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Will those who didn't practice polygamy in mortality practice it in the Celestial Kingdom? Is it an option?

Edited January 17, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Will those who didn't practice polygamy in mortality practice it in the Celestial Kingdom? Is it an option?

I believe so.  Many others don't.

[consiglieri]

***

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 3:45 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

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

This is the second time you have avoided answering my question, Scott.

I take it this is because it contradicts your argument.

Do you want to actually give it a try?

What does the word "necessity" mean in the quote provided unless plural marriage is a "necessity" to exaltation?

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 1:05 PM, juliann said:

There are several problems. First, there is no generic "polygamy." It changed as it went along. For instance, once it became the way things were women wouldn't have to battle with the loss of respect and revulsion, they likely gained status because of it being an elite population. I suspect their would not be as much questioning. But there is still little differentiation other than Nauvoo vs Utah polygamy when it is discussed. 

There is good reason polygamy is only seen through the eyes of men. It was taught as being a man's right and duty to expand his kingdom through women. We acknowledge the original attempts at dynasty making, we just avoid acknowledging how that positioned women...which of course  was not unusual for the times. Women such as Eliza, on the other hand, saw it as a means to escape the curse of Eve. Even BY used this belief. This was actually something quite unique...nowhere else could women escape that curse, even to the point of being denied pain relief during childbirth into the 20th century. But their way of coping was to advise each other not to have affection for their husbands, only their children. That broke the curse that said their desires would only be to their husbands who would then rule over them. 

To continue to talk only about men's exaltation is to remain in the Nauvoo dynasty making era. And compared to the women who were involved, men were a small minority. Unless one holds onto 19th century culture, it wasn't really about men. So we leap frog from a woman's politically and socially repressive 19th century to the Celestial Kingdom which avoids all the messy real life stuff in between....and those no long repressed women. 

Polygamy today would "emasculate" men not exalt them. Who is to say that is not its real purpose?  

 

These are fascinating insights, Juliann, and I appreciate your elaborating on them here.

My understanding is that one of the reasons postulated for Emma's not going west with the Saints is that she had an idea of her status as Joseph Smith's first wife and knew she would be a "prize" for anybody's shelf as a plural wife--particularly Brigham Young.

I think you are spot-on to argue we not "leapfrog" from the politically and socially repressive nature of the practice for women in the 19th century.  Are you saying that you feel it would have a similar effect on the men if practiced today?

If so, I think that is Exhibit A as to why the Church will never reinstate plural marriage, even should it become legal.

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 8:41 PM, halconero said:

Already expressed by JAHS, but if everyone (from the faithful perspective) agrees that Christ was sealed to the Father then the debate really needs to shift to whether or not He was born in the covenant or sealed after. Given my recent studies on the Asherah, and Nephi's increasingly obvious vision of Mary as the Asherah (or of the Asherah as Mary) my gut feeling is that He was born in the covenant.

I will respectfully demur on the question.

I think it a mistake to take modern permutations of Mormonism and read them back into the scriptures--especially where the scriptures are silent on the issue.

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 9:04 PM, halconero said:

Not only Brigham Young, but Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. Even if the physical act of conception is ambiguous, and I would argue that it is, the notion that Jesus is the genetic son of the Father is something of a core doctrine/value of the church, indicating he was conceived through sexual reproduction (I use that term not to indicate intercourse, but reproduction through the combination of genetic material from two individuals). For this to occur outside of a marriage covenant would then indeed be unthinkable.

And this is how we go from bad to worse, in my opinion.

It is all right to engage in speculative theology.  In fact, it is one of the practices of the early LDS Church that I find an improvement over the anti-speculative theology in today's church.

But once we go from the idea that Jesus's conception would have been "unthinkable" outside a "marriage covenant," we then start heading down the trail blazed by Brigham Young that God was married to Mary.

That, coupled with our notions of the premortal existence and the relationships that existed there, makes such a marriage and subsequent union especially problematic.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

But once we go from the idea that Jesus's conception would have been "unthinkable" outside a "marriage covenant," we then start heading down the trail blazed by Brigham Young that God was married to Mary.

That, coupled with our notions of the premortal existence and the relationships that existed there, makes such a marriage and subsequent union especially problematic.

I fail to see any problem with this.
I personally agree with Brigham.  Mary was caught up (transfigured) and married the Father (a resurrected being) and then gave birth to Christ.

A baby was born after presumably 9 months in the womb.  Why would we presume some mystical impregnation scenario?  Think horses, not zebras.

[consiglieri]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I fail to see any problem with this.
I personally agree with Brigham.  Mary was caught up (transfigured) and married the Father (a resurrected being) and then gave birth to Christ.

A baby was born after presumably 9 months in the womb.  Why would we presume some mystical impregnation scenario?  Think horses, not zebras.

Joseph Smith once taught, "If you start right, it is an easy thing to stay right.  If you start wrong, it is a hard thing to get right again."

For myself, I tend to see things going wrong when I perceive that one speculation leads to another speculation leads to another speculation--and then thinking the final speculation to be truth.

I sense the same thing is happening here.

I am not saying you are not right.

I am just saying that for me, it is a bridge too far for me to be satisfied as to its correctness.
 

Quote

 

Then, upon the velvet sinking,I betook myself to linking

Fancy unto fancy, thinking . . .

 

 

[halconero]

Consiglieri, I wish I could convey the tone of this properly, but of course we have the limitations of text. So please understand it's somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

From what I've gathered, most of Mormonism, even the banal stuff, is "a bridge too far for [you] to be satisfied as to its correctness."

To be honest, I don't see the discussion with regards to whether to not Jesus was sealed to the Father as being any more speculative than the far more common discussion regarding Jesus' own marriage. I can't speak with absolute certainty, but from personal experience I would say that most Latter-day Saints fall into the "yes," or "if not in this life he will be married after," camps. This is from the logical extension of the doctrine that Christ fulfilled all righteousness via participating in the ordinances that we must partake in.

Likewise, I consider the doctrine of the sealing, that children have a right to be and must be sealed to their parents and extend that to Christ. I also know that the sealing is not between a single parent and child, but between child and two married parents. In that light, when I consider whether or not Jesus also fulfilled all righteousness via being sealed to married parents, the speculation isn't that far down the rabbit whole. It really comes down to whether or not he was born in the covenant.

[halconero]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I will respectfully demur on the question.

I think it a mistake to take modern permutations of Mormonism and read them back into the scriptures--especially where the scriptures are silent on the issue.

1) Asherah isn't a modern permutation of Mormonism. She was an ancient Israelite goddess figure.

2) Reading 1 Nephi 11 in the light of archeological evidence isn't an exercise in definitive justification of my own beliefs, but attempting to consider them in the light of what they might have believed

To put it simply, I'm not trying to read Mormonism back into Nephi. Rather I'm trying to get into Nephi's head as to what HE might have understood regarding the tree.

I mean, answer me this:

If there really was a Nephi, one who walked the streets of Jerusalem in the days of King Zedekiah who actively indulged the worship of the Asherah, who had family ties in Northern Israel where Asherah worship was prevalent, and who likely engaged in trade with Sidon where her cult was present.

And if Asherah worship, or at least her symbolic presence, had been present even in the days of Abraham...

I could go on, but let me say this:

I recently finished my bachelors with a major in textual criticism of Early Christian texts. There is a problem becoming increasingly prevalent among secular Biblical scholars, which was pointed out by my mentor and academic adviser, John Kloppenborg, himself a secular scholar of the Bible. He said that in our attempts to separate ourselves from the theologians by not reading our modern presumptions into scripture many of us have subsequently refused to delve into them as much as we should using the methods available to us. The only one seemingly acceptable to secular scholars increasingly is archeology, and we've left behind the investigative tools of textual criticism, linguistics, or anthropological qualitative interviews of text. That's due to the immaterial nature of these investigations beyond the text itself. Social and textual scientists are so afraid of being wrong that they won't budge on trying to understand and read the ancient mind that they sit there till they have a material Asherah, Jehovah figurine, pottery, or some scroll in hand. This forgets that some of the great to contributions to the secular study of scripture have been through investigative speculation, linguistics, and textual criticism.

The Gospel of Q was the product of such work, one developed by Kloppenborg himself, and is a largely hypothetical sayings Gospel which is extremely useful to the Biblical community, as well as being increasingly supported by outside evidence. In a manner, the focus on the material evidence betrays the first step of the scientific method in favour of the last, thereby destroying the principle of falsifiability and the whole method itself. If you're waiting on material evidence to form a hypothesis then you can 1) never be wrong (which is a scientific problem) and 2) your ability to move in more correct directions is limited.

Sorry, this is a really convoluted way of saying "step off, yo." If you, as a critic, really want to see the doctrines and writings of Mormonism be proven or disproven don't sit around for material evidence or the lack thereof. Let other methods of investigation have their day.

So when I say that Nephi, if there was a Nephi, was almost certainly familiar with the traditions and doctrines of Asherah worship, that's not me reading Mormonism into Nephi, that's me attempting understand Nephi as he did himself.

He would have understood that Asherah was the divine consort of El and the the Father of Jehovah. That's a really key piece of Asherah worship. The Great Patriarch of the Canaanite pantheon fathering the God of Israel via Asherah. That's not Mormonism, that's not halconero, that's not Kloppenborg at UofT, that's history as demonstrated by the archeologists. And the likelihood that any Israelite of self-describe "goodly parents" (goodly actually means materially wealthy. It's one area where English has changed in close 180 years) did not know this was minimal.

My reading afterwards is not attempting to put Brigham's teachings into the text, but trying to see what the text says itself.

Nephi is shown that the interpretation of this sacred tree, a motif and symbol about as tightly associated with Asherah as say...the Stars and Stripes are with America, and is shown Mary. Mary is given the same type of desriptors as this Asherah figure, and subsequently births the Messiah after God condescends. 

Putting myself in the shoes of a 7th century wealthy Israelite, it wouldn't be a leap into wild speculation, but a logical step forward to consider Mary as the Asherah, the consort of El, and the divine Mother of the God of Israel.