Did early Church leaders teach that polygamy was necessary for exaltation

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

But that's my favorite thing to do. 

[consiglieri]

59 minutes ago, halconero said:

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.

I agree that the widely received understanding of LDS that Jesus was married to be one of those "bridge too far" scenarios for me, personally.

It is based on the idea that modern Mormons have that marriage is essential to exaltation, and is then read back into the New Testament.

The New Testament itself, however, appears to give no weight to such a proposition, not so much as even a bare mention.  And in fact says other things that appear counter to such a proposition.

It is in this context that I agree believing Jesus was married ais problematic.

It reads too much into (and occasionally completely misreads) New Testament stories of the Wedding at Cana, Jesus's spending time with Mary and Martha, and the Johanine words of Jesus to Mary on the morning of the resurrection.

[SamIam]

On 1/15/2016 at 10:39 PM, sunstoned said:

.Brigham Young, "Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City," (19 August 1866) Journal of Discourses 11:268-269

We wish to obtain all that father Abraham obtained. I wish here to say to the Elders of Israel, and to all the members of this Church and kingdom, that it is in the hearts of many of them to wish that the doctrine of polygamy was not taught and practiced by us...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. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

I often see these types of quotes presented to sustain the requirement of plural marriage as a necessity of eternal life.  Folks debate and question and banter back and forth, generally from a position of personal bias or such but I have never seen anyone answer the question as to why plural marriage would be necessary for eternal life.   That it is necessary I believe is apparent.  Many great men and women were sustainers of the practice and so quotes abound that we can call upon to validate the practice.  Still I ask, why is it necessary?  If you can answer this question, and you are one of the faithful who have a desire to be obedient, then I think it completely puts to rest all other aspects of the discussion of do I have to or don't I have to etc.

 

In order to point our minds in the right direction, if any should express interest or have specific answers, then I will make one observation that should point in the general direction of what I consider to be the supreme illustration of the necessity of plural marriage.  Without plural marriage, as a self-existent principle, all creation fails, mankind becomes subject to the devil and eternal life as a theological state ceases.  Any thoughts as to why that is the case?

Edited January 18, 2016 by SamIam

[consiglieri]

36 minutes ago, halconero said:

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.

It is one thing to place a text into its (purported) historical context to see if it can help illuminate the words of the text.

It is another thing entirely to take modern Mormon doctrines and read them back into early historical texts--whether those texts be early LDS Church history or the Bible.

Doing the former helps expand understanding.

Doing the latter restricts understanding.

[consiglieri]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But that's my favorite thing to do. 

LOL!

You are obviously well-read, intelligent, and consistent in your thinking, JLH.

These are the attributes that make your theological speculations so interesting. 

 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, SamIam said:

 Without plural marriage, as a self-existant principle, all creation fails, mankind becomes subject to the devil and eternal life as a theological state ceases.  Any thoughts as to why that is the case?

Other than it is manifestly incorrect, I have no thoughts as to why that should be the case.

[SamIam]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Other than it is manifestly incorrect, I have no thoughts as to why that should be the case.

Upon what grounds do you consider it manifestly incorrect? This question really is much like a theological calculus question.  It requires a firm comprehension and sustainment of LDS doctrine and understanding beyond theological basic math principles.  Some will be able to grasp the necessity of the principle and others will not.  However, to those some it will end the debate forever.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, SamIam said:

Upon what grounds do you consider it manifestly incorrect? This question really is much like a theological calculus question.  It requires a firm comprehension and sustainment of LDS doctrine and understanding beyond theological basic math principles.  Some will be able to grasp the necessity of the principle and others will not.  However, to those some it will end the debate forever.

 

Why are you keeping everybody on tenterhooks, Samian?

With so much build-up, this has gotta be good!

 

[SamIam]

On 1/18/2016 at 0:45 PM, consiglieri said:

Why are you keeping everybody on tenterhooks, Samian?

With so much build-up, this has gotta be good!

 

As for why I do not just build my case and submit, certain discussions are not just discussions for me.  I am careful to try to bring people around into a process of learning.  To just toss it out with out preparing the mind to receive it ensures that some will reject it simply on the face of its stark presentation.  For me, understanding that spiritual things are learned by spiritual preparations I do not want to do a disservice by treating too casually something of great significance.  So, where there is patience, I try to build to the final point of clarity by laying down a foundation of principles so that by reasoning through the evidences we can consider upon the conclusions as informed and thoughtful students of the eternal message.  Polygamy is a subject that most have made up their mind concerning long ago and to get beyond the preconceived notions it must be thoughtfully presented. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by SamIam

[JLHPROF]

45 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

LOL!

You are obviously well-read, intelligent, and consistent in your thinking, JLH.

These are the attributes that make your theological speculations so interesting. 

 

Well, thank you.
But I don't consider my personal beliefs all that speculative.  Almost all of them are direct from general authorities of the Church and most were believed by most members throughout the 19th century and into the 20th.  In the past 50 years some have been reduced from doctrine to speculation.

For example we now have a church where the King Follett Discourse has been reduced to the level of speculation.  For the entire 19th century, and most of the 20th century this was considered one of the most important discourses and greatest revelatory teachings ever given by the president of this last dispensation.  And then slowly it was reduced until it became something "we don't know much about".  I think I'm just a little out of time in my beliefs.  The only difference between myself and some other members is I accept some of our prophetic teachings as inspired truths rather than speculative opinions.

I DO have my own personal speculations on things but I generally don't post them here unless there is a corresponding teaching from Apostles and Prophets.
 

[halconero]

54 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It is one thing to place a text into its (purported) historical context to see if it can help illuminate the words of the text.

It is another thing entirely to take modern Mormon doctrines and read them back into early historical texts--whether those texts be early LDS Church history or the Bible.

Doing the former helps expand understanding.

Doing the latter restricts understanding.

I tend to agree. Yet I would argue that reading Asherah into Nephi is the former rather than the latter.

[halconero]

58 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I agree that the widely received understanding of LDS that Jesus was married to be one of those "bridge too far" scenarios for me, personally.

It is based on the idea that modern Mormons have that marriage is essential to exaltation, and is then read back into the New Testament.

The New Testament itself, however, appears to give no weight to such a proposition, not so much as even a bare mention.  And in fact says other things that appear counter to such a proposition.

It is in this context that I agree believing Jesus was married ais problematic.

It reads too much into (and occasionally completely misreads) New Testament stories of the Wedding at Cana, Jesus's spending time with Mary and Martha, and the Johanine words of Jesus to Mary on the morning of the resurrection.

The thing is, I haven't restricted myself to the New Testament for a long time.

Those namby pamby Church Fathers ain't gonna restrict me with their orthodoxy.

[SamIam]

For instance individuals in the LDS mainstream tend to choose between one of these two perspectives as supplied by these two general authorities:

The first is much like the Brigham Young statement above but is one I prefer:

Quote

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. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: "We will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,"—the man that has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.(Young, Brigham, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269, August 19, 1866).

This is a very direct and straight forward observation that seems to obscure and stand in slight potential opposition to this other perspective shared by Elder Bruce R. McConkie where he states:

 

Quote

Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1–28.) (Mormon Doctrine, p.578–79) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D. & C. 132:7, 29–66.)

As both of these perspectives are by leaders that we anticipate have great spiritual insight, if we accept one over the other we actually undermine personal faith in our leaders.  However is there potential that both perspectives are correct and both perspectives do not undermine plural marriage as an eternal requisite? 

 

[consiglieri]

Something tells me this is going to be the anti-climax of the century.

[thesometimesaint]

There are plenty of Non-LDS people whom claims Jesus was marrried.

[consiglieri]

20 hours ago, halconero said:

I tend to agree. Yet I would argue that reading Asherah into Nephi is the former rather than the latter.

So you believe Asherah is a Mormon doctrine?

[consiglieri]

20 hours ago, halconero said:

The thing is, I haven't restricted myself to the New Testament for a long time.

Those namby pamby Church Fathers ain't gonna restrict me with their orthodoxy.

Very good.

I feel the same way about current LDS leadership.

[consiglieri]

58 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

There are plenty of Non-LDS people whom claims Jesus was marrried.

To the general face-palms of New Testament scholars.

[longview]

21 hours ago, SamIam said:

- - -

Without plural marriage, as a self-existent principle, all creation fails,    - - -

This statement is confusing.  What exactly do you mean by a "self-existent principle?"  Is there even such a thing?  Can you list a few other precepts, doctrines, commandments, principles that could be considered "self-existent principle?"  Can each stand alone by itself?  My life long experience as a disciple of Christ tells me that all components of the Gospel inter-relate with each other in some logical, orderly way.  Just like Mathematics has many components that consist of fundamentals, axioms, rules, layering of more advanced concepts, etc.

I can imagine that "all creation would fail" if certain fundamentals were not met.  Such as Jesus making a mistake and being unable to carry out the "required" process of the Atonement.  But the Atonement does not stand alone by itself, conceptually or otherwise.  I would consider "plural marriage" to be "secondary" to the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, Exaltation, etc.

My speculation for the need of "plural marriage" is that there are many more worthy and righteous females (both in the pre-existence, mortality, and hereafter) than there are of men that can qualify for the top rungs of the Celestial Kingdom.  Maybe by a ratio of 20 women for every man?  If only monogamy was permitted, then too many righteous women will be denied their rightful stations in the Eternities.  Then "creation will fail" because the "Law of Justice" will not tolerate such a situation.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, longview said:

This statement is confusing.  What exactly do you mean by a "self-existent principle?"  Is there even such a thing?  Can you list a few other precepts, doctrines, commandments, principles that could be considered "self-existent principle?"  Can each stand alone by itself?  My life long experience as a disciple of Christ tells me that all components of the Gospel inter-relate with each other in some logical, orderly way.  Just like Mathematics has many components that consist of fundamentals, axioms, rules, layering of more advanced concepts, etc.

I can imagine that "all creation would fail" if certain fundamentals were not met.  Such as Jesus making a mistake and being unable to carry out the "required" process of the Atonement.  But the Atonement does not stand alone by itself, conceptually or otherwise.  I would consider "plural marriage" to be "secondary" to the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, Exaltation, etc.

My speculation for the need of "plural marriage" is that there are many more worthy and righteous females (both in the pre-existence, mortality, and hereafter) than there are of men that can qualify for the top rungs of the Celestial Kingdom.  Maybe by a ratio of 20 women for every man?  If only monogamy was permitted, then too many righteous women will be denied their rightful stations in the Eternities.  Then "creation will fail" because the "Law of Justice" will not tolerate such a situation.

Not in my ward, and in my LDS experience.  Men are usually very deserving of the CK, some women I've known, not so much.  I'd say it's even.  The idea you've presented is used too much to justify polygamy, IMO.  Or put it upon men to live it.  Or women to understand it.  But I will give those that believe in it, freedom to believe what they want.  Maybe they like the sacrifice, or even the life that it provides. 

Edited January 19, 2016 by Tacenda

[SamIam]

3 hours ago, longview said:

This statement is confusing.  What exactly do you mean by a "self-existent principle?"  Is there even such a thing?  Can you list a few other precepts, doctrines, commandments, principles that could be considered "self-existent principle?"  Can each stand alone by itself?  My life long experience as a disciple of Christ tells me that all components of the Gospel inter-relate with each other in some logical, orderly way.  Just like Mathematics has many components that consist of fundamentals, axioms, rules, layering of more advanced concepts, etc.

I can imagine that "all creation would fail" if certain fundamentals were not met.  Such as Jesus making a mistake and being unable to carry out the "required" process of the Atonement.  But the Atonement does not stand alone by itself, conceptually or otherwise.  I would consider "plural marriage" to be "secondary" to the Creation, the Fall, the Atonement, Exaltation, etc.

My speculation for the need of "plural marriage" is that there are many more worthy and righteous females (both in the pre-existence, mortality, and hereafter) than there are of men that can qualify for the top rungs of the Celestial Kingdom.  Maybe by a ratio of 20 women for every man?  If only monogamy was permitted, then too many righteous women will be denied their rightful stations in the Eternities.  Then "creation will fail" because the "Law of Justice" will not tolerate such a situation.

By self-existent I mean that independent of the actual application of plural marriage there can be no existence in terms of the continuation of the seeds that are promised those that receive eternal life. Without plural marriage the plan would stop and could not be fulfilled. I am willing to work within your observations that all things are interrelated and we can completely dispense with the distractions to which a semantical discussion of self-existent would contribute. However, if you consider creation, the fall, the atonement etc. as singularly required, fundamental elements of the process as you understand it, then what I am trying to communicate is that plural marriage should be placed at that fundamental hierarchy and not a secondary level as is your current expectation. I went the route of trying to emphasize certain elements simply to combat comments on this thread that were downplaying very significant events such as the fall etc. 

I would consider the necessity of a fall another self-existent principle, however, for you it is classed as simply a fundamental step in a process consisting of several interrelated events and that also is, at least for me, a correct perspective.  Through the fall we establish the demands of justice. These demands place every single soul who comes to this earth and who breaches the law of the Garden outside of the kingdom of the Father.  There is a reason for why the fall demanded death as a just punishment and it was not because Adam and Eve ate a pomegranate.  We know there was transgression in the preexistence and yet, however it was dealt with it did not require being cast out of God's presence and sentenced to death.

However, hidden in the symbolic elements of the fall is an act that required the only suitable just punishment be death. The punishment must be just and it must be consistent with the event that required the penalty otherwise it cannot be implemented. We can answer this question but that is off track of this thread and I do not want to derail. However, introducing the principle of the demands of justice does exactly what you are expecting in that it establishes the necessity of a mechanism which can accommodate the demands of justice by creating a condition where the demands of justice become a demand for mercy in order to meet the demand of justice.  The atonement is that mechanism as we understand.  The discussion of exactly how mercy is able to meet the demands of justice is an illuminating discussion and has everything to do with the fall. Perhaps someday that thread will be started and we can address that mechanism.   

However, by examining the mechanics of the atonement is where we find the significance of plural marriage. My point is that without plural marriage there can be no atonement rendered. This is what makes it a fundamental element of the process of salvation. It stands alone as one condition that if not met means the end of the plan of salvation. If there is no atonement all creation fails according to Nephi and Alma and others.   

Your observations of the need for plural marriage are very reasonable and can be supported by authoritative commentary of the general authorities of the church. Thus sound. I do appreciate your observation of how the law of justice exacts a requirement for those who attain celestial glory without a worthy male. It would be interesting to explore this further.  However, there is currently an ambiguity to these expectations that some well-meaning, sincere LDS find personal bias and cause for debate as to the degree and ultimate necessity of compliance.  What we are looking for is the ultimate expression of the principle of plural marriage which entirely focuses on the one application that mandates it as a required element of eternal life that every celestial couple (which meets the minimum expectations of the Bruce R. McConkie quote I posted earlier) will have to address or cease to live an eternal life (which meets the extended expectations of the Brigham Young quote I posted earlier). Of course I suspect they will understand this prior to being granted eternal life but at this point it is apparent that it is not often understood. 

To advance the direction of our thoughts on the subject, I would like to inch forward by considering this quote by Brigham Young:

Quote

The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband. On this account infidels have called the Savior a *******. This is merely a human opinion upon one of the inscrutable doings of the Almighty. That very babe that was cradled in the manger, was begotten, not by Joseph, the husband of Mary, but by another Being. Do you inquire by whom? He was begotten by God our heavenly Father. This answer may suffice you—you need never inquire more upon that point.” (Young, Brigham, Journal of Discourses 11:268)

 

In my research I have multiple sources that convey elements of the above quote with varying degrees of detail and additional information but in the interest of brevity this one can suffice to move us forward. This quote does not exactly identify the absolute necessity of plural marriage but with a little pondering and thoughtful consideration one can extrapolate its singular requirement. Consider upon this and with your comments we will proceed.

Edited January 19, 2016 by SamIam
for the want of a comma

[cinepro]

On 1/18/2016 at 0:25 PM, halconero said:

I tend to agree. Yet I would argue that reading Asherah into Nephi is the former rather than the latter.

Ah, that takes me back...

 

 

 

 

 

[halconero]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

So you believe Asherah is a Mormon doctrine?

I believe Asherah is an ancient Israelite doctrine that Nephi would've been familiar with if he was real.

[SamIam]

2 minutes ago, halconero said:

I believe Asherah is an ancient Israelite doctrine that Nephi would've been familiar with if he was real.

Please, take a stand.  Is Nephi real or not? If not then the entire conjecture is moot!

[VideoGameJunkie]

I wish we knew whether or not we'll be living polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom so it'd be less confusing when thinking about the topic.