Polygamy Becoming Popular, but not with LDS

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Whoa, the Book of Mormon says polygamy is wrong?

How did Joseph Smith and Brigham Young explain that once polygamy was practiced? I'd be interested in any words of theirs, if available, instead of modern day apologists.

 

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The speech Jacob gave condemning having multiple wives (and banning concubinage) included a proviso saying that if God wanted to use it he would command his people. Without that command they were to stick with the one wife standard. The defense is built into the scripture. It is a condemnation of non-divinely commanded polygamy.

There is strong reason to believe that the Book of Mormon is a Manassite (Northern) document, which has nothing good to say of Davidic/Judahite (Southern) tradition.

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, the oft-quoted exposition on sexual morality and polygamy by Jacob, brother of Nephi, is reason enough for LDS to vehemently oppose polygamy today. It has nothing to do with religious liberty, unless one equates libertines with patriots. Maybe this reminder will help.....

Curious.  Joseph Smith recorded those passages in Jacob years before subsequently restoring the practice of plural marriage within Mormonism. 

Why do you believe those verses are "reason enough" for modern Latter-day Saints to oppose polygamy, but apparently shouldn't have been and/or weren't "reason enough" for early Latter-day Saints (across decades of leadership by multiple LDS prophets) to likewise reject and oppose it?  Were all those early LDS members and leaders wrong to not do so? 

I find your assertion that "it has nothing to do with religious liberty, unless one equates libertines with patriots" to be entirely nonsensical, since there are many religions that continue to exist today who's religious beliefs encompass and even call for polygamy.  Unless you're defining "religious liberty" as something that should only apply to and protect your own personal religious beliefs and practices but not the religious beliefs and practices of members of other Faiths.

Same question I posed to USU:  Do you or do you not believe that there will be exalted polygamists (those who received exaltation as polygamists and in will remain in eternal polygamist marriages)? 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Just based on dead reckoning among the Mormons I have met over the years.  There seems to be a singular distaste for polygyny.  I get the same notion from this board.  Nothing scientific, mind you.  Just my impression of modern Mormon opinion.  I have no idea what the Lord might have in mind.

Thank you for your response and candor.  I agree that there seems to be a singular distaste towards the concept of returning to the practice of plural marriage, despite their being a parallel (and perhaps compartmentalized) reverence and even veneration of early saints/pioneers who were persecuted and forced to cross the plains in large part due to their practice of polygamy.  To this day, devoutly LDS members of my own family reference the marriages of my polygamist ancestors with honor and respect anytime we discuss our family history in relation to their practice of polygamy and the gospel.

When considering what early saints endured in the name of living their Faith (not only the trek westward, but the unjust social and civic persecution and unconstitutional mistreatment at the hands of their own government), I'm not surprised the idea is met with distaste and abhorrence--no one today would want to endure anything similar to what early saints had to endure. 

But as others have pointed out, that sentiment seems to have been present and common among the saints and even leaders in the early days of the church, too, and yet the saints were still required to live the law:

Quote

“The response of the men who were introduced into polygamy between 1841 and 1846 was anything but enthusiastic. The same was true of the women who were offered the chance of becoming plural wives. Apart from the fact that the new system collided with moral assumptions they had grown up with, there were practical difficulties that made polygamy less attractive. For the men to support additional wives was seldom easy. And for women to be married on this basis without being legally acknowledged as wives can hardly have been reassuring. It was not the kind of scheme that aroused cheers and applause.”

- Mormon Experience, by Leonard J. Arrington and Davis Bitton, p. 197

And here:

Quote

After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates. This principle was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration—for Joseph personally and for other Church members. Plural marriage tested faith and provoked controversy and opposition. Few Latter-day Saints initially welcomed the restoration of a biblical practice entirely foreign to their sensibilities. But many later testified of powerful spiritual experiences that helped them overcome their hesitation and gave them courage to accept this practice.

I agree that most (if not all) members hope that a living LDS leader doesn't reinstate the practice of polygamy... but I'm not aware of anything official that suggests that polygamy was ever fully or finally abolished and won't ever be practiced again.  The church has never disavowed or condemned it's practice in the early church or among those members who so practiced it, and such plural marriages remain on church records and within canonical scripture and belief as fully-valid, eternally-sealed, temple-married families (despite USU's strange aversion to acknowledging as much). 

In fact, as I mentioned earlier, men are still being eternally sealed in temples to multiple women ("for time and all eternity"), just to one living woman at a time.

D&C 132 openly acknowledges that the plural marriages of many prophets that practiced plural marriage, including Abraham, Solomon, Moses, and "many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time," will continue throughout the eternities, and they and their families have entered into their exalted state as gods:

Quote

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

...

Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Daniel2

[Stargazer]

On 7/30/2017 at 1:54 PM, Calm said:

"she would have the easiest of the two tasks."

Meaning what?

You do know I was being facetious, right?

The intent was to suggest the relative difficulty between a man trying to keep two (or more) women happy vs a woman trying to keep one man happy.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Curious.  Joseph Smith recorded those passages in Jacob years before subsequently restoring the practice of plural marriage within Mormonism. 

Why do you believe those verses are "reason enough" for modern Latter-day Saints to oppose polygamy, but apparently shouldn't have been and/or weren't "reason enough" for early Latter-day Saints (across decades of leadership by multiple LDS prophets) to likewise reject and oppose it?  Were all those early LDS members and leaders wrong to not do so? 

I find your assertion that "it has nothing to do with religious liberty, unless one equates libertines with patriots" to be entirely nonsensical, since there are many religions that continue to exist today who's religious beliefs encompass and even call for polygamy.  Unless you're defining "religious liberty" as something that should only apply to and protect your own personal religious beliefs and practices but not the religious beliefs and practices of members of other Faiths.

Same question I posed to USU:  Do you or do you not believe that there will be exalted polygamists (those who received exaltation as polygamists and in will remain in eternal polygamist marriages)? 

Curious indeed. It seems Jacob's words did not figure into the establishment of the practice in the early Church, even though that practice is clearly compatible with his instructions. It's not

clear to me that the early polygamists were even aware of Jacob's instructions. Who knows?

I have provided prolific explanations of my feelings on this subject. Short version:

1. Polygamy is the exception, not the norm. It is forbidden by Jacob except for a specific circumstance.

2. It was not a mistake. It was not an excuse to legitimize sexual immorality. It was a revealed commandment to Joseph Smith with a specific purpose.

3. It's purpose was to "raise seed to the Lord," which in my opinion, means to rapidly create a faithful generation to establish the Restoration. See Jacob.

4. It fulfilled its purpose and was discontinued. The only way it can be practiced again by the Church is by commandment and with the stated purpose. See Jacob.

My assertion about religious liberty nonsensical? If you say so. I have often pointed out the inconsistencies in our society re polygamy and promiscuity. I stand with Jacob.

Of course there will be exalted polygamists. But no one will be forced into something they do not want in the Celestial Kingdom.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Daniel2]

27 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Curious indeed. It seems Jacob's words did not figure into the establishment of the practice in the early Church, even though that practice is clearly compatible with his instructions. It's not clear to me that the early polygamists were even aware of Jacob's instructions. Who knows?

Given that Joseph Smith was THE "early polygamist" that recorded the passage of Jacob, it seems self-evident that he would have been fully aware of the passage, no....?

I presume that's why Joseph taught that commandments that seemed to contradict previous commandments--even commandments permitting things which previously had been labeled as 'abominations''--weren't necessarily in conflict with one another, given that what is right or wrong may vary depending on the circumstances, especially with and in particular regards to polygamy.  Which, of course, aligns with the four other points you posted:

Quote

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. 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.

Edited August 1, 2017 by Daniel2

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My assertion about religious liberty nonsensical? If you say so. I have often pointed out the inconsistencies in our society re polygamy and promiscuity. I stand with Jacob.

There are religions who practice polygamy as a religious right though.  Shouldn't we join other religions in standing up for the religious liberty of all even if our theology differs?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I appreciate the comment, but it doesn't address my question of why some current members of the LDS church are asserting that God will never authorize polygamy again.

I suspect personal distaste. I suspect it will be authorized again but I do not have strong feelings about it.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

There is strong reason to believe that the Book of Mormon is a Manassite (Northern) document, which has nothing good to say of Davidic/Judahite (Southern) tradition.

A bit dubious. Lehi was of Manasseh but had been living in the kingdom of Judah for several generations.

[Robert F. Smith]

54 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A bit dubious. Lehi was of Manasseh but had been living in the kingdom of Judah for several generations.

You no doubt haven't heard of John Sorenson's documentary analysis of the BofM as a Northern E document, and my detailed analysis of the BofM as a Manassite doc has yet to be published.

See John L. Sorenson, "Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue, 10/4 (1977):31-39, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N04_33.pdf .

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You no doubt haven't heard of John Sorenson's documentary analysis of the BofM as a Northern E document, and my detailed analysis of the BofM as a Manassite doc has yet to be published.

See John L. Sorenson, "Brass Plates and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue, 10/4 (1977):31-39, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N04_33.pdf .

I have been involved with the creation of enough academic papers (as writer, editor, and helper) to know that a paper existing is not enough to establish much of anything. No offense intended. The papers could be right.

I have my doubts though. Nephi was taught "after the manner of the Jews". In the text it sounds like Lehi was not even aware he was a descendant of Joseph until he got the brass plates. At best I think you could argue that the Brass Plates were a Northern document (mixed with Judahite sources of course like Jeremiah).

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I have been involved with the creation of enough academic papers (as writer, editor, and helper) to know that a paper existing is not enough to establish much of anything. No offense intended. The papers could be right.

I have my doubts though. Nephi was taught "after the manner of the Jews". In the text it sounds like Lehi was not even aware he was a descendant of Joseph until he got the brass plates. At best I think you could argue that the Brass Plates were a Northern document (mixed with Judahite sources of course like Jeremiah).

Nephi's matter of fact statement in 1 Nephi 5:14 could mean that his father first learned of his descent from Joseph while reading the Brass Plates, but it seems far more likely that he is stating it just for the record.  No surprise is expressed.  Archeologists know from the Samaria Ostraca from only a century earlier that tribal and clan self-identification was still very strong.  Nephi's reference to the "learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne 1:2) merely lets us know where he was living and what kind of instruction he had received.  Archeologists all agree that Jerusalem swelled with refugees from the Northern Kingdom during and after the Assyrian conquest.

My own systematic analysis shows the predominance of Manassite names and ideology throughout the Book of Mormon.  Certainly the statement in Alma 10:3 is straightforward and matter of fact:

Quote

And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren.

 

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nephi's matter of fact statement in 1 Nephi 5:14 could mean that his father first learned of his descent from Joseph while reading the Brass Plates, but it seems far more likely that he is stating it just for the record.  No surprise is expressed.  Archeologists know from the Samaria Ostraca from only a century earlier that tribal and clan self-identification was still very strong.  Nephi's reference to the "learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Ne 1:2) merely lets us know where he was living and what kind of instruction he had received.  Archeologists all agree that Jerusalem swelled with refugees from the Northern Kingdom during and after the Assyrian conquest.

My own systematic analysis shows the predominance of Manassite names and ideology throughout the Book of Mormon.  Certainly the statement in Alma 10:3 is straightforward and matter of fact:

 

I am not arguing that Lehi was Manasseh and Ishmael Ephraim.

I am not sure Lehi knew. The text "Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph;" suggests Lehi was not sure. It is not conclusive but to my reading it is indicative.

Nephi's reference suggests that he was culturally Jewish. And yes, there were a lot of refugees.

The use of names from Manasseh could easily have come from the extensive genealogies from the brass plates. For Lehi to trace his lineage from Joseph all the way to relative he knew of the plates must have had a lot of names.

[Bernard Gui]

18 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Given that Joseph Smith was THE "early polygamist" that recorded the passage of Jacob, it seems self-evident that he would have been fully aware of the passage, no....?

No, I don't believe that would be self-evident.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Daniel2]

Dup

Edited August 2, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

17 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Curious indeed. It seems Jacob's words did not figure into the establishment of the practice in the early Church, even though that practice is clearly compatible with his instructions. It's not clear to me that the early polygamists were even aware of Jacob's instructions. Who knows?

 

16 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Given that Joseph Smith was THE "early polygamist" that recorded the passage of Jacob, it seems self-evident that he would have been fully aware of the passage, no....?

 

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No. 

I'm not clear on what you're response is referring to, above...  Can you please clarify what is it that you're saying "no" to....?

Are you saying you disagree that Joseph Smith was the early LDS polygamist who recorded the passage of Jacob?

Or are you saying that you believe Joseph Smith wasn't aware of the contents of the book which he transcribed?

Or perhaps you're saying the "early polygamists" who joined the LDS church (many of them in leadership positions within the church, including those holding the highest callings of Prophet and/or Apostle) and began to practice polygamy weren't familiar with what The Book of Mormon says?

Or are you saying something else, entirely? If so, can you please clarify what you meant when you said, "It's not clear to me that the early polygamists were even aware of Jacob's instructions."

Thank you.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

 

 

I'm not clear on what you're response is referring to, above...  Can you please clarify what is it that you're saying "no" to....?

Are you saying you disagree that Joseph Smith was the early LDS polygamist who recorded the passage of Jacob?

He was not a polygamist when he recorded it. He was not consciously laying a foundation for later practice. AFAIK, he did not use Jacob when the time came that it would be useful.

Or are you saying that you believe Joseph Smith wasn't aware of the contents of the book which he transcribed?

Not of every detail, no. AFAIK, he never mentioned this, along with many other specific BoM passages.

Or perhaps you're saying the "early polygamists" who joined the LDS church (many of them in leadership positions within the church, including those holding the highest callings of Prophet and/or Apostle) and began to practice polygamy weren't familiar with what The Book of Mormon says?

I would like to see examples of them quoting it. If you know of any I would love to see them.

Or are you saying something else, entirely? If so, can you please clarify what you meant when you said, "It's not clear to me that the early polygamists were even aware of Jacob's instructions."

I'm not aware of early Church emphasis on protracted study of the BoM, apologetic books explaining difficult passages, Deseret Book, BYU Studies, BOMC, Interpreter, Sunstone, Maxwell Institute tomes on individual chapters, PhD level comparisons with the Bible, FHE, Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society, Primary, Seminary, Institute, YM/YW lesson manuals, decades of theological, linguistic, historical, and historical fiction based on the Book, etc. Was it a primary object of study in the School of the Prophets? I wonder just how extensive their knowledge of fairly obscure passages was.

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

I heard a statistic today, don't know how accurate  or it's just somebody's opinion possibly, that so many LDS men are leaving the church that 1/3 of the LDS women will remain single unless they marry inactive or non-LDS men outside of the temple.

Maybe we need to let up on telling young women to desire to marry a temple-worthy young man. 

In this case maybe LDS might need to bring back polygamy, just a thought I got when putting two and two together.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I heard a statistic today, don't know how accurate  or it's just somebody's opinion possibly, that so many LDS men are leaving the church that 1/3 of the LDS women will remain single unless they marry inactive or non-LDS men outside of the temple.

Maybe we need to let up on telling young women to desire to marry a temple-worthy young man. 

In this case maybe LDS might need to bring back polygamy, just a thought I got when putting two and two together.

The LDS won't bring back polygamy. God will bring it back if it is necessary. This time around (if on the outside chance it happens) it may not result in persecution, imprisonment, and confiscation of property.

There are probably other issues that will lead to that.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Quote

I humbly retract my previous assertions about the Book of Mormon used to defend polygamy and present these and following entries as proof.

JD 4:254 − p.255, Daniel H. Wells, March 1, 1857 

The principles of plurality have been established, in order to raise up a righteous seed unto God. The way has been pointed out, and it is a blessing that has been restored to this generation. It is a turning back to the holy principles of ancient days, even to the purity that was known in primitive ages. In this way only may we rise from corruption, through the Holy Priesthood of our God. We do not handle these things with proper sacredness, perhaps. It is a principle that is calculated to produce health, strength, and happiness here, as well as salvation hereafter. It is so esteemed by many, and when you see the principle as it really is, you will say that it is as I tell you.

JD 13:201 − p.202, George Q. Cannon, October 9, 1869

The Bible, the only work accepted by the nations of Christendom, as a divine revelation, sustains this doctrine, from beginning to end. The only revelation on record that can be quoted against it, came through the Prophet Joseph Smith, and is contained in the Book of Mormon; and strange to say, here in Salt Lake City, a day or two since, one of the leading men of the nation, in his eager desire and determination to cast discredit on this doctrine, unable to do so by reference to the Bible, which he, no doubt, in common with all Christians, acknowledges as divine, was compelled to have recourse to the Book of Mormon, a work which on any other point he would most unquestionably have scouted and ridiculed as an emanation from the brain of an impostor. What consistency! A strange revolution this, that men should have recourse to our own works, whose authenticity they most emphatically deny, to prove us in the wrong. Yet, this attempt, whenever made, cannot be sustained, for brother Pratt clearly showed to you, in his remarks the other day, that instead of the Book of Mormon being opposed to this principle, it contains an express provision for the revelation of the principle to us as a people at some future time − namely, that when the Lord should desire to raise up unto Himself a righteous seed, He would command His people to that effect, plainly setting forth that a time would come when He would command His people to do so.

It is necessary that this principle should be practiced under the auspices and control of the Priesthood. God has placed that Priesthood in the Church to govern and control all the affairs thereof, and this is a principle which, if not practiced in the greatest holiness and purity, might lead men into great sin, therefore the Priesthood is the more necessary to guide and control men in the practice of this principle. There might be circumstances and situations in which it would not be wisdom in the mind of God for His people to practice this principle, but so long as a people are guided by the Priesthood and revelations of God, there is no danger of evil arising therefrom. If we, as a people, had attempted to practice this principle without revelation, it is likely that we should have been led into grievous sins, and the condemnation of God would have rested upon us; but the Church waited until the proper time came, and then the people practiced it according to the mind and will of God, making a sacrifice of their own feelings in so doing. 

JD 13:195, Orson Pratt, October 7, 1869 

Let us now come to the record in the Book of Mormon, when the Lord led forth Lehi and Nephi, and Ishmael and his two sons and five daughters out of the land of Jerusalem to the land of America, the males and females were about equal in number. There was Nephi, Sam, Laman and Lemuel, the four sons of Lehi, and Zoram, brought out of Jerusalem. How many daughters of Ishmael were unmarried? Just five. Would it have been just under these circumstances to ordain plurality among them? No. Why? Because the males and females were equal in number and they were all under the guidance of the Almighty, hence it would have been unjust, and the Lord gave a revelation − the only one on record I believe − in which a command was ever given to any branch of Israel to be confined to the monogamic system. In this case the Lord through His servant Lehi, gave a command that they should have but one wife. The Lord had a perfect right to vary His commands in this respect according to circumstances as He did in others, as recorded in the Bible. There we find that the domestic relations were governed according to the mind and will of God, and were varied according to circumstances, as he thought proper.

By and by, after the death of Lehi, some of his posterity began to disregard the strict law that God had given to their father, and took more wives than one, and the Lord put them in mind, through His servant Jacob, one of the sons of Lehi, of this law, and told them that they were transgressing it, and then referred to David and Solomon, as having committed abomination in His sight. The Bible also tells us that they sinned in the sight of God; not in taking wives legally, but only in those they took illegally, in doing which they brought wrath and condemnation upon their heads.

But because the Lord dealt thus with the small branch of the House of Israel that came to America, under their peculiar circumstances, there are those at the present day who will appeal to this passage in the Book of Mormon as something universally applicable in regard to man's domestic relations. The same God that commanded one branch of the House of Israel in America, to take but one wife when the numbers of the two sexes were about equal, gave a different command to the hosts of Israel in Palestine. But let us see the qualifying clause given in the Book of Mormon on this subject. After having reminded the people of the commandment delivered by Lehi in regard to monogamy, the Lord says, "For if I will raise up seed unto me I will command my people, otherwise they shall hearken unto these things;" that is, if I will raise up seed among my people of the House of Israel, according to the law that exists among the tribes of Israel I will give them a commandment on the subject, but if I do not give this commandment they shall hearken to the law which I give unto their father Lehi. That is the meaning of the passage, and this very passage goes to prove that plurality was a principle God did approve under circumstances when it was authorized by Him.

In the early rise of this Church, February, 1831, God gave a commandment to its members, recorded in the Book of Covenants, wherein He says, "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and to none else;" and then He gives a strict law against adultery. This you have, no doubt, all read; but let me ask whether the Lord had the privilege and the right to vary from this law. It was given in 1831, when the one−wife system alone prevailed among this people. I will tell you what the Prophet Joseph said in relation to this matter in 1831, also in 1832, the year in which the law commanding the members of this Church to cleave to one wife only was given. Joseph was then living in Portage county, in the town of Hiram, at the house of Father John Johnson. Joseph was very intimate with that family, and they were good people at that time, and enjoyed much of the Spirit of the Lord. In the fore part of the year 1832, Joseph told individuals, then in the Church, that he had inquired of the Lord concerning the principle of plurality of wives, and he received for answer that the principle of taking more wives than one is a true principle, but the time had not yet come for it to be practised. That was before the Church was two years old. The Lord has His own time to do all things pertaining to His purposes in the last dispensation; His own time for restoring all things that have been predicted by the ancient prophets. If they have predicted that the day would come when seven women would 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;" and that, in that day the branch of the Lord should be beautiful and glorious and the fruits of the earth should be excellent and comely, the Lord has the right to say when that time shall be.

Now supposing the members of this Church had undertaken to vary from that law given in 1831, to love their one wife with all their hearts and to cleave to none other, they would have come under the curse and condemnation of God's holy law. Some twelve years after that time the revelation on Celestial Marriage was revealed. This is just republished at the Deseret News office, in a pamphlet entitled, "Answers to Questions," by President George A. Smith, and heretofore has been published in pamphlet form and in the Millennial Star, and sent throughout the length and breadth of our country, being included in our works and published in the works of our enemies. Then came the Lord's time for this holy and ennobling principle to be practised again among His people......

JD 11:206 − p.208 Amasa M. Lyman, April 5, 1866

We fought our way to this country against all the hardships and obstacles that stood in our path and, through God's blessing, we have overcome them; we have cultivated the land and done the best that we could under the circumstances, and we have provided for ourselves and for our wives and children as well as we could, and we have been contented. If the husbands of Utah were poor, their wives were willing to share that poverty with them; they were willing to nibble a living from the same dry crust, out of the same stinted fare that we partook of, because they were our wives, and we regarded them as honorable and as good as ourselves, if they behaved as well. This our friends do not like. Our business here in the mountains is to develop a community in which man and woman shall find, through the extension of honorable, pure, just, and virtuous marriage, the legitimate position that Heaven ordained them to occupy as wives and mothers, husbands and fathers, and a response to every requirement of nature, without stepping aside from the path of virtue and honor.

That is what God designed when he commenced this work − "Why did He not introduce it at the very commencement of this work?" Because He could not − because our ears were not open to hear it − our prejudices would not allow us to receive it. If I had been talked to about plurality of wives when I was baptized into the Church, the Lord may know, but I do not know what I would have done. I had to go wandering over the world preaching the Gospel years after, had to work longer than Jacob did for a wife to get myself in that state of mind that the Lord dare name the doctrine to me. We were not aware that any such a thing as plural marriage had to be introduced into the world; but the Lord said it after a while, and we obeyed the best we knew how, and, no doubt, made many crooked paths in our ignorance. We were only children, and the Lord was preparing us for an introduction to the principles of salvation. "What, the principles of salvation connected with marriage?" Yes; because they are nowhere else. "Will not our preaching save us, our going to Church, and our paying tithing?" People have been preaching, praying, paying tithes, building cathedrals and churches, and the deadly work of physical degeneracy is still going on until the race is nearly upon the brink of extinction. Christianity, as it now is, and has been for centuries, has proved entirely insufficient to stop the great evil − to check it in its fearful growth.

The Lord understood this when he talked to the people of Nephi: He told them they should have but one wife, and concubines they should have none. Why would He not allow them to have concubines? I suppose it was because He delighted in the chastity of women. This was simply avowing His feeling with regard to that matter. Concubinage was displeasing in His sight. He left them at liberty to have a wife, but concubines they should have none; informing them that when He wanted His people to raise up seed unto Him, and if it was necessary they should have many wives He would command them. That is simply what He has done. He has commanded us. It is well enough now for the brethren and sisters who have been in practical polygamy for many years to begin to understand something of the nature and object of the institution, that they may not trade it off simply for admittance into the Union, or for anything whatever that may be offered for its exchange. However their enemies may plead to the contrary, the Saints are gathered together from all the world, that the provisions of a virtuous marriage may be extended to all the social element in the community, and that by this there should cease to be developed in that community the curse of woman's prostitution or man's corruption, and where mothers in Zion can make it their business to teach their children the way in which they should go; to implant in early childhood principles of truth; to lead them to God; to grow around the hearth like plants of righteousness, that the saying of the old preacher may be verified, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it."

We are not a numerous people, but we are more numerous than when the Lord told Adam and Eve to be fruitful, and multiply and fill this their earthly inheritance with intellectual beings like themselves. How well that first pair succeeded is evidenced here to−day. We need not be discouraged, for we can count thousands that are pledged to this work, which is established to re−people the world, to fill the earth with virtuous, pure, and holy men and women. That is the work that devolves upon us. Should every woman be married? Every woman should be married for the same reasons that one woman is married, namely, to subserve the same high, healthy, and God−like objects of our being. And for the same high purpose should every man be married.

There are certain facts of our existence which we cannot escape from. We are men and women. The very reason why I have spoken here to−day is that we are men and women; we have come here with men's and women's natures, passions, and appetites; and if we are ever saved in heaven, we shall be saved as men and women. Our business here is to save men and women by teaching them to live lives of purity. These are self−evident truths. When we count up the men and women that are in the world, we shall find a broad margin more of women than men; and there is a numerical difference in the sexes, as they are developed in our community and every other community. Women must be saved, if the task should devolve on a man to marry two or three of them, and treat them as honorable wives, bless them, and bless their children, provide for them, and teach them principles of purity. When we who made this feeble beginning in that matter can bear the struggle no longer, we will call around us our stalwart sons and daughters, and pledge them before high heaven to devote themselves for ever, and their children after them, to the great work of man's regeneration. 

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not arguing that Lehi was Manasseh and Ishmael Ephraim.

I am not sure Lehi knew. The text "Lehi, also found upon the plates of brass a genealogy of his fathers; wherefore he knew that he was a descendant of Joseph;" suggests Lehi was not sure. It is not conclusive but to my reading it is indicative.

Nephi's reference suggests that he was culturally Jewish. And yes, there were a lot of refugees.

Well, American Jews can be spoken of as culturally American, even though they have a separate genetic and religious heritage, so we need to be careful of surface impressions.  After all, Nephi differentiates Nephites from Jews (2 Ne 28:5, 29:13), and even makes it clear that his people are of the House of Israel (2 Ne 29:14), even while saying that his people are descendants of the Jews (2 Ne 30:4), all the while understanding that he and Laban are descendants of Joseph (1 Ne 5:14-16).

We see the same confusing use of the term "Jew" in the NT, where Paul calls  himself a "Jew" (Acts 22:3), even though he knows that he is of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1, Philip 3:5).  Nephi's conscious use of the term is just the same.  Modern Jews often use such umbrella terminology the same way in referring to Abraham and Moses as Jews, even though that is clearly absurd in each case.

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The use of names from Manasseh could easily have come from the extensive genealogies from the brass plates. For Lehi to trace his lineage from Joseph all the way to relative he knew of the plates must have had a lot of names.

Just because biblical records contain lots of genealogies, does not mean that the Brass Plates contain only Manassite genealogies.  In fact, the Brass Plates are described as being a more extensive record than the Bible (1 Ne 5:11-16).  The favored use of specifically Manassite names in the BofM (which Joseph Smith could not have selected) indicates something different:

Indeed, not only does Grant Hardy describe the Book of Mormon as “almost a lineage history” (Understanding the Book of Mormon, 107), but he also sees the BofM as a polemic against and denial of the Davidic Covenant (Hardy, “The Book of Mormon’s Missing Covenant,” Meridian Magazine, December 27, 2010, http://www.ldsmag.com/1/article/7089.).

This correlates well with the ancient cisjordanian primacy of Manasseh along with the important transjordanian tribal location of (half-)Manasseh in the fertile and well-forested region of the northern Gilead highland (Arabic ˁAjlun), i.e., north of the Jabbok River.  Cisjordanian Manasseh (not Ephraim) was the central, dominant tribal and administrative area (from at least the end of reign of King Solomon) of the northern kingdom of Israel in that all three capitals of the north were located within Manasseh -- the area in which the late 8th century B.C. Samaria Ostraca were recovered by archeologists.  This leads us inexorably to a series (or constellation) of collocated Manassite personal and place-names in the Book of Mormon, which makes perfectly good sense only in light of Lehi's stated tribal heritage (Alma 10:3), which is the same heritage claimed by Editor Mormon (3 Nephi 5:20).  Moreover, when the comparisons are systematically made, we find that closely related and cross-identified groups such as biblical Midianites, Medanites, Ishmaelites, Amaleqites, Qenites, and the wilderness areas, and transjordanian cities, towns, and ethnic regions associated with them (along the Kings' Highway and in Midian and the Negeb Desert) often show up collocated in the Book of Mormon -- along with Manassite clan-names and place-names.  That is the ethnology of the BofM in summary.

[Bernard Gui]

Quote

JD 1:62...., Orson Pratt, August 29, 1852

Whoredom, adultery, and fornication, have cursed the nations of the earth for many generations, and are increasing fearfully upon the community; but they must be entirely done away from those who call themselves the people of God; if they are not, woe! woe! be unto them, also; for "thus saith the Lord God Almighty," in the Book of Mormon, "Woe unto them that commit whoredoms, for they shall be thrust down to hell!" There is no getting away from it. Such things will not be allowed in this community; and such characters will find, that the time will come, that God, whose eyes are upon all the children of men, and who discerneth the things that are done in secret, will bring their acts to light; and they will be made an example before the people; and shame and infamy will cleave to their posterity after them, unto the third and fourth generation of them that repent not.

How is this to be prevented? for we have got a fallen nature to grapple with. It is to be prevented in the way the Lord devised in ancient times; that is, by giving to His faithful servants a plurality of wives, by which a numerous and faithful posterity can be raised up, and taught in the principles of righteousness and truth: and then, after they fully understand those principles that were given to the ancient Patriarchs, if they keep not the law of God, but commit adultery, and transgressions of this kind, let their names be blotted out from under heaven, that they may have no place among the people of God.

But again, there is another reason why this plurality should exist among the Latter−day Saints. I have already given you one reason, and that is, that you might inherit the blessings and promises made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and receive a continuation of your posterity, that they may become as numerous as the sand upon the sea−shore. There is another reason, and a good one, too. What do you suppose it is? I will tell you; and it will appear reasonable to every man and woman of a reflecting mind. Do we not believe, as the Scriptures have told us, that the wicked nations of the earth are doomed to destruction? Yes, we believe it. Do we not also believe, as the Prophets have foretold, concerning the last days, as well as what the new revelations have said upon the subject, that darkness prevails upon the earth, and gross darkness upon the minds of the people; and not only this, but that all flesh has corrupted its way upon the face of the earth; that is, that all nations, speaking of them as nations, have corrupted themselves before the Most High God, by their wickedness, whoredoms, idolatries, abominations, adulteries, and all other kinds of wickedness? And we furthermore believe, that according to the Jewish Prophets, as well as the Book of Mormon, and modern revelations given in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, that the sword of the vengeance of the Almighty is already unsheathed, and stretched out, and will no more be put back into the scabbard until it falls upon the head of the nations until they are destroyed, except they repent.

What else do we believe? We believe that God is gathering out from among these nations those who will hearken to His voice, and receive the proclamation of the Gospel, to establish them as a people alone by themselves, where they can be instructed in the right way, and brought to the knowledge of the truth. Very well; if this be the case, that the righteous are gathering out, and are still being gathered from among the nations, and being planted by themselves, one thing is certain − that that people are better calculated to bring up children in the right way, than any other under the whole heavens. O yes, says one, if that is the case − if you are the people the ancient Prophets have spoken of, if you are the people that are guided by the Lord, if you are under the influence, power, and guidance of the Almighty, you must be the best people under heaven, to dictate the young mind: but what has that to do with the plurality of wives? I will tell you. I have already told you that the spirits of men and women, all had a previous existence, thousands of years ago, in the heavens, in the presence of God; and I have already told you that among them are many spirits that are more noble, more intelligent than others, that were called the great and mighty ones, reserved until the dispensation of the fulness of times, to come forth upon the face of the earth, through a noble parentage that shall train their young and tender minds in the truths of eternity, that they may grow up in the Lord, and be strong in the power of His might, be clothed upon with His glory, be filled with exceeding great faith; that the visions of eternity may be opened to their minds; that they may be Prophets, Priests, and Kings to the Most High God.

Do you believe, says one, that they are reserved until the last dispensation, for such a noble purpose? Yes; and among the Saints is the most likely place for these spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and righteous parentage. They are to be sent to that people that are the most righteous of any other people upon the earth; there to be trained up properly, according to their nobility and intelligence, and according to the laws which the Lord ordained before they were born. This is the reason why the Lord is sending them here, brethren and sisters; they are appointed to come and take their bodies here, that in their generations they may be raised up among the righteous. The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations that dwell upon the face of this earth. They are not kept in reserve in order to come forth to receive such a degraded parentage upon the earth; no, the Lord is not such a being; His justice, goodness, and mercy will be magnified towards those who were chosen before they were born; and they long to come, and they will come among the Saints of the living God; this would be their highest pleasure and joy, to know that they could have the privilege of being born of such noble parentage.

Then is it not reasonable, and consistent that the Lord should say unto His faithful and chosen servants, that had proved themselves before Him all the day long; that had been ready and willing to do whatsoever His will required them to perform − take unto yourselves more wives, like unto the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob of old − like those who lived in ancient times, who walked in my footsteps, and kept my commands? Why should they not do this? Suppose the Lord should answer this question, would He not say, I have here in reserve, noble spirits, that have been waiting for thousands of years, to come forth in the fulness of times, and which I designed should come forth through these my faithful and chosen servants, for I know they will do my will, and they will teach their children after them to do it. Would not this be the substance of the language, if the Lord should give us an answer upon this subject?

But then another question will arise; how are these things to be conducted? Are they to be left at random? Is every servant of God at liberty to run here and there, seeking out the daughters of men as wives unto themselves without any restriction, law, or condition? No. We find these things were restricted in ancient times. Do you not recollect the circumstance of the Prophet Nathan's coming to David? He came to reprove him for certain disobedience, and told him about the wives he had lost through it; that the Lord would give them to another; and he told him, if he had been faithful, that the Lord would have given him still more, if he had only asked for them. Nathan the Prophet, in relation to David, was the man that held the keys concerning this matter in ancient days; and it was governed by the strictest laws.

So in these days; let me announce to this congregation, that there is but one man in all the world, at the same time, who can hold the keys of this matter; but one man has power to turn the key to inquire of the Lord, and to say whether I, or these my brethren, or any of the rest of this congregation, or the Saints upon the face of the whole earth, may have this blessing of Abraham conferred upon them; he holds the keys of these matters now, the same as Nathan, in his day.

But, says one, how have you obtained this information? By new revelation. When was it given, and to whom? It was given to our Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Joseph Smith, on the 12th day of July, 1843; only about eleven months before he was martyred for the testimony of Jesus. He held the keys of these matters; he had the right to inquire of the Lord; and the Lord has set bounds and restrictions to these things; He has told us in that revelation, that only one man can hold these keys upon the earth at the same time; and they belong to that man who stands at the head to preside over all the affairs of the Church and kingdom of God in the last days. They are the sealing keys of power, or in other words, of Elijah, having been committed and restored to the earth by Elijah, the Prophet, who held many keys, among which were the keys of sealing, to bind the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers; together with all the other sealing keys and powers, pertaining to the last dispensation. They were committed by that Angel who administered in the Kirtland Temple, and spoke unto Joseph the Prophet, at the time of the endowments in that house. 

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Double post.

Edited August 2, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 8/1/2017 at 2:46 PM, pogi said:

There are religions who practice polygamy as a religious right though.  Shouldn't we join other religions in standing up for the religious liberty of all even if our theology differs?

Given Jacob, I don't know how we can take that stand. Like abortion.....even though it may be a common and in most places legal practice, it is not right.

Granted, Jacob is talking about the Lord's people, but I think monogamy is a general principal good for all people.

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Given Jacob, I don't know how we can take that stand. Like abortion.....even though it may be a common and in most places legal practice, it is not right.

Granted, Jacob is talking about the Lord's people, but I think monogamy is a general principal good for all people.

If religious liberty can so easily be stripped from others, than what protection have we?  Religious liberty only works when it is applied to all religion, and not just Mormonism.  If we do not protect religious liberty for everybody, then we are putting our own religious rights at risk. 

Moroni 8 states that baptizing children is an "evil abomination", it also states that worshiping false Gods and idols is an abomination, I could probably go on.  I am sure that you are not in favor of making Catholic child baptism illegal, or the worship of Allah or Hindu Gods?  Prohibition and the WoW?  I could go on, but I think my point is sufficiently clear that if we don't protect the rights of others to worship "how, where, and what they may", then we should not expect protection ourselves.  

As far as abortion goes, I don't know of any religions that perform abortion as a religious right.  Also, I only believe in religious liberty to the extent that religious practices do not infringe upon the rights of others. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by pogi