Eternal polygamy rears its ugly head…again

[halconero]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The Jairus' daughter example, I think tells us more about the gospel of Mark, and the way the author was trying to portray Jesus.  The theme of a Messianic secret is throughout that gospel.  Disciples, people healed by Jesus, even demon's, were all commanded not to reveal the nature of their experiences that would point to who Jesus was.  This is throughout Mark, and a central theme in his gospel.  

As for using evasive answers or twisting words, I believe I could make a stronger case from scripture that this is a behavior condemned by Jesus, and that this is a tool associated with lawyers, pharisees and the devil.  

Yeah, like the time he condemned Abraham for calling Sarah his sister.

Or damned Rahab for lying to the leaders of Jericho about the Israelite spies. Oh, and the Hebrew midwives.

Then there was that time he punished Samuel for lying about his purpose for going to Judah.

Except God either commanded deception or commended lying in those instances.

I don't disagree with the concept of the Markan Messianic secret. Yet it is one of the instances which retains consistency among all the Gospels, something remarkable even given Markan priority in the two document hypothesis. Jesus led people on multiple times, he taught in parables to obscure truths, and secretly taugh the mysteries. None of which I have a problem with. What is sin in one instance may be righteous in others should God command.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, halconero said:

What is sin in one instance may be righteous in others should God command.

Or sometimes a lesser law must be broken so that a higher law can be lived.  A law is still broken, but it had to be.

[halconero]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Or sometimes a lesser law must be broken so that a higher law can be lived.  A law is still broken, but it had to be.

My favourite quote on the subject:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." - Joseph Smith Jr.

 

Interestingly, this passage is quoted in Preach My Gospel. Don't know why I find that fascinating, but I do.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Or sometimes a lesser law must be broken so that a higher law can be lived.  A law is still broken, but it had to be.

It's easy to justify a lot of shenanigans with this logic. For example, to practice the higher law of celestial plural marriage, Joseph Smith and others could blatantly lie to the world at large, the lds community, and even their own wives.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's easy to justify a lot of shenanigans with this logic. For example, to practice the higher law of celestial plural marriage, Joseph Smith and others could blatantly lie to the world at large, the lds community, and even their own wives.

It explains the Fall as well. 

[halconero]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It explains the Fall as well. 

I've always thought of that as a case where the law broken was a descriptive law vs a moral one. It's a concept I've taken to studying recently. A descriptive law is one which "describes" the reality of things without necessarily having a moral quality to it. These would include laws of chemistry, physics, biology, etc.

There are many examples (I'm too lazy at the moment to pull out specifics, but I can upon request), of prophets and apostles teaching that miracles are not a subversion of the laws of the universe, but the operation of higher laws on a lower plane. In other words, a miracles is the operation of celestial laws of physics/biology/chemistry in a Telestial World.

I understand this isn't doctrinal in the sense that it's a truth authorized to be taught to the Church, but I've come to personally understand a "transgression" as sort of an anti-miracle. It's the operation of lower laws in a higher plane. Our best indications are that the Garden of Eden probably existed in a Terrestrial State, but the Fruit was of a Telestial Quality. Partaking thereof constituted the introduction of Telestial Operations in a Terresrrial sphere, thereby transgressing descriptive laws of biology, chemistry and physics relevant to that sphere.

Therefore, the law broken in Eden did not have a moral quality, it was not prescriptive in nature. It was instead a broke descriptive law. Adam and Eve did not sin in a moral sense, but they did transgress the descriptive laws of the state in which they resided, and were not allowed to remain.

Anyways, that's my 57 cents on the matter.

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, halconero said:

I've always thought of that as a case where the law broken was a descriptive law vs a moral one. It's a concept I've taken to studying recently. A descriptive law is one which "describes" the reality of things without necessarily having a moral quality to it. These would include laws of chemistry, physics, biology, etc.

There are many examples (I'm too lazy at the moment to pull out specifics, but I can upon request), of prophets and apostles teaching that miracles are not a subversion of the laws of the universe, but the operation of higher laws on a lower plane. In other words, a miracles is the operation of celestial laws of physics/biology/chemistry in a Telestial World.

I understand this isn't doctrinal in the sense that it's a truth authorized to be taught to the Church, but I've come to personally understand a "transgression" as sort of an anti-miracle. It's the operation of lower laws in a higher plane. Our best indications are that the Garden of Eden probably existed in a Terrestrial State, but the Fruit was of a Telestial Quality. Partaking thereof constituted the introduction of Telestial Operations in a Terresrrial sphere, thereby transgressing descriptive laws of biology, chemistry and physics relevant to that sphere.

Therefore, the law broken in Eden did not have a moral quality, it was not prescriptive in nature. It was instead a broke descriptive law. Adam and Eve did not sin in a moral sense, but they did transgress the descriptive laws of the state in which they resided, and were not allowed to remain.

Anyways, that's my 57 cents on the matter.

I think it was Elder Oaks who described the difference between transgression and sin (and therefore the Fall and other sins) as the difference between murder and jaywalking.  Both break the law, but only murder is a morally wrong.  Jaywalking obviously isn't, it has consequences but they are not at all in the same scope or breadth as murder.

I think your ideas make a lot of sense.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's easy to justify a lot of shenanigans with this logic. For example, to practice the higher law of celestial plural marriage, Joseph Smith and others could blatantly lie to the world at large, the lds community, and even their own wives.

Bluebell got it right.  It explains the Fall. 
It explains multiple violations of the laws of the land when they contradict the laws of God - Daniel, the three Hebrews, polygamy.
It explains violations of the pharisaical laws (whether you consider those legitimate or political) by Christ.
It explains Nephi and Laban.

Are they shenanigans or is there a principle here worth understanding?

 

[halconero]

Well, I've always been partial to the Go'El Hadan theory for Nephi's slaying of Laban. Without the ability to convene a Sanhedrin, it fell on Nephi to act as the Avenger of Blood and enact the punishment on Laban for being the leader of a city gone astray and for attempted murder, namely Hereg, death by beheading.

[Jeanne]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Or sometimes a lesser law must be broken so that a higher law can be lived.  A law is still broken, but it had to be.

Kinda like Hilary Clinton..

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Kinda like Hilary Clinton..

 

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Love it...no matter what it means...

[smac97]

So there's a Trib article that clarifies, to some extent, the thesis of Carol Lynn Pearson's book:

Quote

Mormonism needs to divorce itself from polygamy — historically and theologically — author advocates

By PEGGY FLETCHER STACK | The Salt Lake Tribune

Oh.  That's all?

Quote

It’s time for mainstream Mormonism to strip away all vestiges of polygamy — past, present and future — argues a prominent LDS writer and activist.

Remove a defense of polygamy from Mormon scripture, disavow it as ever having been an inspired historical practice, Carol Lynn Pearson proposes in her new book, and discontinue marriage practices dictating it in heaven.

...

“Polygamy delayed is still polygamy,” reasons Pearson in her just-published book, “The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy: Haunting the Hearts and Heaven of Mormon Women and Men.” It is “not an artifact in a museum. It is alive and unwell, a ghost that has a dark life of its own — hiding in the recesses of the Mormon psyche, inflicting profound pain and fear, assuring women that we are still objects, damaging or destroying marriages, bringing chaos to family relationships.”

Um, okay.

Quote

During Pearson’s presentation Saturday, the acclaimed playwright, poet and author, who lives in northern California, will share some of more than 8,000 responses she received to an online survey about polygamy.

So . . . self-reported anecdotes from a self-selected sampling.  I find it rather dissembling for Sis. Pearson to acknowledge the profound methodological flaws with her "poll," and then turn around and treat it as if it were a methodologically sound poll.

Quote

Though not a scientific sample, Pearson says that 51 percent of the respondents were “active Mormons.” Only 15 percent were “at peace with polygamy,” she writes, while “85 percent expressed sadness, confusion, pain.”

See?  She's using percentages from a methodologically flawed poll to push her narrative.  Juxtaposing the significance of opinions held by percentage X against opinions held by percentage Y of self-selected respondents is profoundly misleading, even dishonest.

Quote

If the church would acknowledge that God was not the author of polygamy, renounce its practice, scrub D&C 132, and change temple-marriage policies, Pearson believes it would have a profound impact on current Mormons.

"If the church would acknowledge that God..."  Gotta luv the objective journalism of Peggy Fletcher Stack and The Trib these days.  Here there are, actually taking sides regarding God authoring (or not authoring) a religious doctrine.  And they do so under the guise of "reporting" "news."

The provenance of 19th century LDS polygamy is a matter of faith.  It's not some objectively quantified fact to be "acknowledged."

Quote

Men and women would have an “equal status in eyes of God,” she believes, and young women and widows would be “spared the wounding to our femaleness that we receive today.”

Oh, brother.  I think there are better ways to improve the Church than reducing the women in it to some collective of dainty snowflakes.

There are better ways to improve the Church than for self-appointed ark-steadiers to declare what is and is not scripture or doctrine.

There are better ways to improve the Church than to import the Gender Wars into it and use them as a rhetorical pretext for usurping the role of the Presiding High Priest.

What's next?  Do we retroactively abandon animal sacrifice and the consumption of animal flesh in the scriptures so that the Vegans and animal lovers among us won't be "triggered?"  ("The Bible describes the Resurrected Lord as eating 'a piece of a broiled fish ... {and} an honeycomb.'  Agh!  We must 'acknowledge' that God is not the author of such savagery!  We must excise Luke 24 from the Bible, lest my 'vegetarianness' be 'wounded!'")

Do we appoint Sis. Pearson to be Grand Inquisitor?  What other doctrines will she (and she alone, apparently) decide unacceptably infringe on our dainty selves?  

Sis. Pearson must know that the thesis of her book is a non-starter.  She's far too intelligent.  And yet here she is, crossing the Rubicon.  I think that's an appropriate conclusion when we see a self-selected member of the Church publicly promoting the abandonment of scripture because she and her supporters don't like it.

The thing is, this isn't even a judgment call as far as working within the Restored Gospel.  I can respect, to some extent, the position taken by Kate Kelly and her ilk.  I despised their tactics, but at least their theory had a remotely plausible basis.  Female ordination arguably fits within a doctrinal lacuna, so at least they made some effort to present the possibility that the doctrinal framework of the Church could accommodate it.

But Sis. Pearson is proposing something even more radical than Kate Kelly ever did.  Sis. Pearson is publicly promoting the abandonment of unequivocally established scriptures and doctrine, based purely on her dislike of it.  The brazenness of it is astounding.  AFAICS, she's not even pretending to have a revelatory or evidentiary or logical basis for her proposal.  Such things are not part of her equation.  Rather, she's simply saying that some people don't like the doctrine of polygamy, so we should abandon it and renounce the revelations pertaining to it.

The Rubicon has been crossed.  That is saddening.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 27, 2016 by smac97

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited July 27, 2016 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So there's a Trib article that clarifies, to some extent, the thesis of Carol Lynn Pearson's book:

Oh.  That's all?

Um, okay.

So . . . self-reported anecdotes from a self-selected sampling.  I find it rather dissembling for Sis. Pearson to acknowledge the profound methodological flaws with her "poll," and then turn around and treat it as if it were a methodologically sound poll.

See?  She's using percentages from a methodologically flawed poll to push her narrative.  Juxtaposing the significance of opinions held by percentage X against opinions held by percentage Y of self-selected respondents is profoundly misleading, even dishonest.

"If the church would acknowledge that God..."  Gotta luv the objective journalism of Peggy Fletcher Stack and The Trib these days.  Here there are, actually taking sides regarding God authoring (or not authoring) a religious doctrine.  And they do so under the guise of "reporting" "news."

The provenance of 19th century LDS polygamy is a matter of faith.  It's not some objectively quantified fact to be "acknowledged."

Oh, brother.  I think there are better ways to improve the Church than reducing the women in it to some collective of dainty snowflakes.

There are better ways to improve the Church than for self-appointed ark-steadiers to declare what is and is not scripture or doctrine.

There are better ways to improve the Church than to import the Gender Wars into it and use them as a rhetorical pretext for usurping the role of the Presiding High Priest.

What's next?  Do we retroactively abandon animal sacrifice and the consumption of animal flesh in the scriptures so that the Vegans and animal lovers among us won't be "triggered?"  ("The Bible describes the Resurrected Lord as eating 'a piece of a broiled fish ... {and} an honeycomb.'  Agh!  We must 'acknowledge' that God is not the author of such savagery!  We must excise Luke 24 from the Bible, lest my 'vegetarianness' be 'wounded!'")

Do we appoint Sis. Pearson to be Grand Inquisitor?  What other doctrines will she (and she alone, apparently) decide unacceptably infringe on our dainty selves?  

Sis. Pearson must know that the thesis of her book is a non-starter.  She's far too intelligent.  And yet here she is, crossing the Rubicon.  I think that's an appropriate conclusion when we see a self-selected member of the Church publicly promoting the abandonment of scripture because she and her supporters don't like it.

The thing is, this isn't even a judgment call as far as working within the Restored Gospel.  I can respect, to some extent, the position taken by Kate Kelly and her ilk.  I despised their tactics, but at least their theory had a remotely plausible basis.  Female ordination arguably fits within a doctrinal lacuna, so at least they made some effort to present the possibility that the doctrinal framework of the Church could accommodate it.

But Sis. Pearson is proposing something even more radical than Kate Kelly ever did.  Sis. Pearson is publicly promoting the abandonment of unequivocally established scriptures and doctrine, based purely on her dislike of it.  The brazenness of it is astounding.  AFAICS, she's not even pretending to have a revelatory or evidentiary or logical basis for her proposal.  Such things are not part of her equation.  Rather, she's simply saying that some people don't like the doctrine of polygamy, so we should abandon it and renounce the revelations pertaining to it.

The Rubicon has been crossed.  That is saddening.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Unless Pearson uses her book to prove (as far as is possible) that God condemns all things polygamy I don't see the point of the book at all. 

Her opinion on polygamy doesn't (and shouldn't) hold any weight for LDS people.  It would be very weird for her to advocate a change in doctrine without such proof. 

[smac97]

...

Edited July 27, 2016 by smac97

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, halconero said:

My favourite quote on the subject:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." - Joseph Smith Jr.

 

Interestingly, this passage is quoted in Preach My Gospel. Don't know why I find that fascinating, but I do.

 

Yet we better be sure the one claiming God is saying this was wrong but now is right is really speaking for God.   Given the context of this quote and what Joseph was trying to persuade the recipient of the letter this is taken from to do, I personally am skeptical of this position.

And it is an incredibly wonderful proposition for the one who claims to speak for God.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Teancum

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

So there's a Trib article that clarifies, to some extent, the thesis of Carol Lynn Pearson's book:

 

All I have to say if one is going to edit polygamy out of history and the scriptures, why stop there.  Just rewrite history and scriptures so that it does not contain anything that is offensive to Carol and only contains things that she likes.

Edited July 27, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

Just now, carbon dioxide said:

deleted

 

Edited July 27, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[JLHPROF]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:42 PM, bluebell said:

Unless Pearson uses her book to prove (as far as is possible) that God condemns all things polygamy I don't see the point of the book at all.

Her opinion on polygamy doesn't (and shouldn't) hold any weight for LDS people.  It would be very weird for her to advocate a change in doctrine without such proof.

The entire book appears to be built on this false premise.
Unortunately her opinion has too many supporters among members today that God's word somehow gets lost in the shuffle.

Edited August 20, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

On 7/26/2016 at 0:27 AM, halconero said:

My favourite quote on the subject:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." - Joseph Smith Jr.

 

Interestingly, this passage is quoted in Preach My Gospel. Don't know why I find that fascinating, but I do.

 

According to the article by Brian Hales at his website, the quote came from John Bennett.  http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history/nauvoo-polygamy-secretly/#JosephSecretlyProceedswithMorePluralSealings

The woman Joseph chose was Nancy Rigdon, the nineteen-year-old daughter of his First Counselor in the First Presidency, Sidney Rigdon. The proposal turned out badly. Nancy’s brother J. Wickliffe Rigdon, who late in life became a Latter-day Saint, recalled the incident:

It happened in this way: Nancy had gone to Church meeting being held in a grove near the temple lot on which the “Mormons” were then erecting a temple, an old lady friend [Marinda Johnson Hyde] who lived alone invited her, which Nancy did. When they got to the house and had taken their bonnets off, the old lady began to talk to her about the new doctrine of polygamy which was then being taught, telling Nancy, during the conversation, that it was a surprise to her when she first heard it, but that she had since come to believe it to be true.

While they were talking Joseph Smith the Prophet came into the house and joined them, and the old lady immediately left the room. It was then that Joseph made the proposal of marriage to my sister. Nancy flatly refused him, saying if she ever got married she would marry a single man or none at all, and thereupon took her bonnet and went home, leaving Joseph at the old lady’s home.¹⁷

Apparently, in an attempt to propose plural marriage to her, the Prophet dictated a letter to her containing doctrinal teachings that was published by excommunicated member John C. Bennett:

Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

God said, thou shalt not kill. —at another time He said, thou shalt utterly destroy. This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever Godrequires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire. If we seek first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added. So with Solomon: first he asked wisdom, and God gave it him, and with it every desire of his heart, even things which might be considered abominable to all who understand the order of heaven only in part, but which in reality were right because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation.

A parent may whip a child, and justly, too, because he stole an apple; whereas if the child had asked for the apple, and the parent had given it, the child would have eaten it with a better appetite; there would have been no stripes; all the pleasure of the apple would have been secured, all the misery of stealing lost.

This principle will justly apply to all of God’s dealings with His children. Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed, and which will not end in the greatest amount of good and glory to those who become the recipients of his law and ordinances. Blessings offered, but rejected, are no longer blessings, but become like the talent hid in the earth by the wicked and slothful servant; the proffered good returns to the giver; the blessing is bestowed on those who will receive and occupy; for unto him that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundantly, but unto him that hath not or will not receive, shall be taken away that which he hath, or might have had.

Be wise to-day; ’tis madness to defer;

Next day the fatal precedent may plead.

Thus on till wisdom is pushed out of time

Into eternity. Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be. He will be inquired of by his children – he says, ask and ye shall receive,seek and ye shall find;” but, if you will take that which is not your own, or which Ihave not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things—who will listen to my voice and to the voice of my servant whom I have sent; for I delight in those who seek diligently to know my precepts, and abide by the law of my kingdom; for all things shall be made known unto them in mine own due time, and in the end they shall have joy.¹⁸ (Emphasis—of unknown significance—is reproduced as in Bennett’s published version.)

J. Wickliffe Rigdon also related the aftermath:

Nancy told father and mother of it. The story got out and it became the talk of the town that Joseph had made a proposition to Nancy Rigdon to become his wife, and that she refused him. A few days after the occurrence Joseph Smith came to my father’s house and talked the matter over with the family [and] my sister. … The feelings manifested by our family on this occasion were anything but brotherly or sisterly, more especially on the part of Nancy, as she felt that she had been insulted. A day or two later Joseph Smith returned to my father’s house, when matters were satisfactorily adjusted between them and there the matter ended.¹⁹

Despite a sincere effort by the Prophet and even a doctrinal epistle that included justifications for plural marriage, he was unsuccessful. Joseph Smith’s choice of Nancy Rigdon to receive this plural marriage proposal, the first offered to a previously unmarried woman since he wed Louisa Beaman, is puzzling. Whatever the criteria he used to assess her possible willingness to embrace a new and extremely novel doctrine, the outcome suggests that he had misjudged her.

That Joseph might approach Nancy is predictable, as he tended to approach daughters of close associates when proposing plural marriage. Why he wrote such a detailed letter to teach her the doctrine is less evident. In similar circumstances, he worked through relatives to initiate the proposals.

The letter’s contents could have been befuddling to Nancy Rigdon. The doctrines included were new and unique. Its tone and approach do not seem to convey a message that would successfully persuade a teenager to join him in a secret plural marriage. Absent are appeals to loving feelings he may have possessed for her or an offer to marry him in order to enjoy conjugal bliss.

It is possible that his real target audience was not the young woman but the parent—that is, the Prophet was trying to instruct Sidney and garner his support for the doctrine. Possibly Joseph hoped that Nancy would respond favorably, and through her participation, her father would become converted to the principle.

That Joseph would not approach Sidney Rigdon, his counselor in the first presidency, seems odd. Whereas members of the Church are accustomed to the president of the Church and the Counsel of the Twelve Apostles making policy and issues of policy a matter of unified affirmation, that was not the way Joseph approached church government.

Indeed in the case of plural marriage, it appears those closest in Church government to him were not the first to be informed about Joseph’s restoration but rather those he thought would accept the concept.

[carbon dioxide]

On 7/25/2016 at 0:35 PM, hope_for_things said:

Yes, possibly.  Either he doesn't believe things were as clear cut, or he was spinning his response to the media for cover.  My impression from Oaks is that he is particularly careful with his choice of words, especially when speaking to the media.  I  doubt that we get very close to his personal feelings when he answers questions in this capacity.  It think his every word is very calculated to represent the church in the best possible light.  

I think the GA are much more careful speaking on issues that there is no direct answer to in the scriptures. We see the examples of when leaders went off in to diverse speculations regarding the reason for the priesthood ban and none of those speculations have proven to be true and accomplished little.  There are too many people nitpicking words today so avoiding issues that require too much opinion and little scriptural support might be the best way to approach things.

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think the GA are much more careful speaking on issues that there is no direct answer to in the scriptures. We see the examples of when leaders went off in to diverse speculations regarding the reason for the priesthood ban and none of those speculations have proven to be true and accomplished little.  There are too many people nitpicking words today so avoiding issues that require too much opinion and little scriptural support might be the best way to approach things.

I agree.  I would also say that scriptural interpretation can vary quite a bit, so even though one leader may find confidence with his/her interpretation of scripture, that can change too as others interpret scriptures differently.  And that says nothing to the multitude of various different POVs in scripture, scriptures contain opinions of a multitude of authors over time.  

[thesometimesaint]

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2 Peter 1:20

[ksfisher]

In reading through this thread this phrase from Acts 10:15 keeps coming to my mind:

"What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common."

If plural marriage was indeed instituted by divine revelation, then God has cleansed it.  It has no "ugly head" as the thread title states except to those who cannot accept Joseph Smith as a prophet or attempt to pick and choose when they believe Joseph was acting as a prophet and when he was getting things wrong.