Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My ggmother (may have been one more great, names were similar) told her husband it was time to get permission to enter into a second marriage and then told him who to marry.  

Thank you, that makes sense to me.  I am friends with a polygamist family, and the first wife told the husband who she felt was supposed to be the second wife, and then the first two likewise for the third wife.   I'll just say that it seems to work for them, and to work very well.  Of course they have to keep their relationship "under the radar", so to speak, and that part is inconvenient at best. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I agree eternally speaking, it has to be for the benefit of all involved.  Sacrifices where one ends up with less than another or even suffering aren't meant to be lived eternally.  They are done so that the future can be better.

One of the flaws I see with plural marriage (as far as we know it to have been revealed and practiced) is the resulting surplus of unmarried young men.  It is not a better deal for them.  So while I do not dispute your ggmother's high opinion of what was arguably "plural marriage done right", I don't think we have all the pieces of the puzzle yet (implied by the last verse of Section 132). 

 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Eek!

[Eek!]

On ‎12‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 7:41 AM, Peppermint Patty said:

Some say that humor is the best medicine.  I once watched a stand up comedy routine that went something like this, "It's common for men to refer to their wife as their better half. What if you're a polygamist? Here's Annie, she's my better eighth?"

Clearly Jesus taught that polygamy was wrong:  "A man cannot serve two masters..."

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, Eek! said:

One of the flaws I see with plural marriage (as far as we know it to have been revealed and practiced) is the resulting surplus of unmarried young men.  It is not a better deal for them. 

And this is precisely why widespread polygyny in any eternal sense is a mathematical impossibility.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Eek!]

38 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And this is precisely why widespread polygyny in any eternal sense is a mathematical impossibility.

What do you think if Calm's ideas?   I have yet to master the art of multiple quotes, so forgive me for using old-fashioned quotation marks:

"... it looks like polyandry needs to be made available to ensure everyone has the opportunity to be sealed in the next life."

"I am open to it [polygamy] myself because I can see where men and women have been loved, in loved, and made deeply held commitments to more than one person in their lives.  I don't see any reason at this time why when mortal limitations are removed, why men and women wouldn't be able to perfectly love more than one spouse at the same time over eternity.  I have not had a personal witness of it, so I have not drawn any conclusion besides it makes sense to me if eternity is primarily about being with those we love."

(I omitted the last sentence of your second paragraph above, Calm, in the interest of not derailing the thread by my inability to resist voicing an opinion on the subject.)

[Thinking]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I am also a child that was born out of wedlock, and I like to think I turned out pretty good.    

If God said somewhere in the scriptures "I sometimes use illegitimate births to create seed unto me" then I think we'd have to use the children born out of wedlock as part of how we judged that fruit because God has legitimized the illegitimate child with such a declaration.  

But since God has not said that, I don't think we would judge the fruit of fornication the same way.

It's amazing that people can make things work out no matter the circumstances. Do you think it's possible that some of those involved in polygamy made it work simply because they made the best of the situation?

[Hamba Tuhan]

51 minutes ago, Eek! said:

What do you think of Calm's ideas?

I don't have any inherent objections to any form of polygamy. The hand-wringing from so many whenever this topic arises seems very narrow to me -- both culturally bound and ahistorical.

When I was doing my master's study in America, I helped a young man come back to church my first year. He then met one of the YSA females, and they began to date seriously. (After interrupting his PhD in maths for a mission, he ended up marrying her afterwards.) The two of us were eating dinner together one night, and my mate said, 'You know, J-- and I were talking, and we decided that if polyandry were allowed by God, we'd both pick you to be J--'s husband'. It was an off-the-wall comment, and yet I understood what was behind it: sincere love and admiration. Those are pretty powerful things, and I took the comment as a compliment of the highest order.

Sharing a home (as I do) requires the development of numerous godly traits. I suspect this is true whenever people have to share anything. I'm strongly of the opinion that the practice of plural marriage in the 19th-century Church engendered all kinds of godly traits in those who were open to being refined ... and so radically altered the gender norms in the Church that the world is only just starting to catch up to us. Some poster above stated, without any support, that the fruits of plural marriage were bitter. He is absolutely wrong.

At the same time, 30 years of open plural marriage amongst the 19th-century Saints revealed its unsustainability. As Kenneth Godfrey's research has shown, fully one-third of males in the Church never married as a consequence of the practice. And as George Q. Cannon correctly noted, ' a large number of unmarried men ... is a dangerous element in any community'. It is certainly not the basis upon which to build eternity.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Eek! said:

Thank you, that makes sense to me.  I am friends with a polygamist family, and the first wife told the husband who she felt was supposed to be the second wife, and then the first two likewise for the third wife.   I'll just say that it seems to work for them, and to work very well.  Of course they have to keep their relationship "under the radar", so to speak, and that part is inconvenient at best. 

One of the flaws I see with plural marriage (as far as we know it to have been revealed and practiced) is the resulting surplus of unmarried young men.  It is not a better deal for them.  So while I do not dispute your ggmother's high opinion of what was arguably "plural marriage done right", I don't think we have all the pieces of the puzzle yet (implied by the last verse of Section 132). 

 

It is possible that the balance will be polyandry as many women have loved and married second or third husband's even when previous ones died.  After all, if polygyny is about being with the ones you loved and not having to choose between them, seems to me to be a blessing as likely for women as men.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Calm

[Gray]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I didn't say ever that I am incapable of judging good from evil, only that I am incapable of perfectly judging good from evil.  I'm fallible.  Neither can I rely on myself to be the standard for what is good and what is evil because, again, i'm fallible.  I'm also too ignorant; I'm not even able to comprehend everything that I don't know I don't know, let alone accurately interpret everything that I do know, all which negatively impacts my ability use myself as a standard with much success.

Hmm, but revelation doesn't provide you with a less fallible guide -  it still relies on your own ability to discern revelation from error.

 

 

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

To answer your question though, I believe that good spiritual impulses are those which generally bring love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness,  and temperance with them.  

I believe the same. For this reason I must reject polygamy as being ungodly.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Eek! said:

Clearly Jesus taught that polygamy was wrong:  "A man cannot serve two masters..."

Yeah, but then was Mary for the comfort and Martha for the housework.

 

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The two of us were eating dinner together one night, and my mate said, 'You know, J-- and I were talking, and we decided that if polyandry were allowed by God, we'd both pick you to be J--'s husband'. It was an off-the-wall comment, and yet I understood what was behind it: sincere love and admiration. Those are pretty powerful things, and I took the comment as a compliment of the highest order.

Wow.  Thank you for sharing that.  I speculate that Joseph Smith's paradigm shifted late in his life towards something harmonious with what you describe.  And I speculate that shift was mirrored in his essentially ceasing to engage in new plural marriages once he had started the Quorum of the Anointed.   

Imo there is a scripture which hints that polyandry isn't necessarily out of the question:  "And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."   (D&C 132:41)  So... what about IF it HAD been "appointed unto her by the holy anointing"?  Kinda sounds like, in THAT case, it would NOT be adultery for her to be with that other man...??

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is possible that the balance will be polyandry as many women have loved and married second or third husband's even when previous ones died.  After all, if polygyny is about being with the ones you loved and not having to choose between them, seems to me to be a blessing as likely for women as men.

Agreed.  In a world where jealousy doesn't exist, I think many of this world's barriers would fall away.

Imo for those who really love more than one partner for whatever reason, having to choose between them would not be heaven, but more like a taste of its opposite.  My suspicion is that heaven might well appear "complicated" if seen from our present point of view, but would be a "house of order" when viewed correctly.  We don't know a whole lot about that order, but I think it is more likely to be a natural order rather than an imposed one.  And I would not be surprised if it had room for Hamba and his two friends. 

Edited January 4, 2018 by Eek!

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Gray said:

Hmm, but revelation doesn't provide you with a less fallible guide -  it still relies on your own ability to discern revelation from error.

It does provide me with a less fallible guide (though still not an infallible one).  If i didn't believe that (or hadn't experienced that in my life) then I wouldn't believe the things I do about God and the Spirit.  

Quote

I believe the same. For this reason I must reject polygamy as being ungodly.

O.k.  

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's amazing that people can make things work out no matter the circumstances. Do you think it's possible that some of those involved in polygamy made it work simply because they made the best of the situation?

Probably, but I'm not sure that means anything significant.  Or maybe I just don't understand what you are asking exactly.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

There is a chapter after that one on economics, unfortunately not all of the book is previewed.

Well shoot! I thought answering a CFR with a book was a big no no around here, at least that's what some have complained about in the past.  Luckily for you, I don't care.  It doesn't seem like the book will respond to my concern anyway.  

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

 

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=8RuWiM2-YYAC&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=kathryn+daynes+immigrant+women+plural+monogamy&source=bl&ots=7OD6Q2qtC7&sig=Ge-Ct61DKdphl1e2KoPORdLeiuQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwsqXA5rzYAhUI7GMKHTl9Cb0Q6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=kathryn daynes immigrant women plural monogamy&f=false

While not specific to abusive marriages, divorce for women was relatively easy during the years of plural marriage, enough so that Utah became the divorce capital of the US.  Daynes states the easiness of divorce encouraged people to risk marriage, including plural marriage.  Many who left a plural marriage later remarried plurally.

"Lenient divorce laws fostered members' marriages to Saints by permitting them to 
easily dissolve their marriages with nonbelievers or apostates. Leniency in 
granting divorces also allowed those unhappy in plural marriages to escape from 
them. Plural marriage made it possible for women to find other mates easily..."

I missed this part the first time.  Is this saying that women having easy resource to divorce their husbands to be a good fruit of plural marriages?  Women could up and leave one man for another?  Hm...I guess I wouldn't have considered that a good fruit.  Interesting take.

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

https://www.npr.org/2017/01/17/510246850/how-mormon-polygamy-in-the-19th-century-fueled-womens-activism

"ULRICH: Mormons supported suffrage for women, I think, as a way of calling the bluff of 19th-century antagonists, who claimed that women were subordinated in Mormonism. And that - in a kind of joking way, a writer in The New York Times said, well, let's give them the vote, and then they can, you know, eliminate polygamy. Well, Mormons thought that was a rather bright idea. Some people have assumed, well, the men just came up with this idea as a kind of political move. But what we know now, through very careful research in the minutes of women's meetings, is that they asked for it.

GROSS: The women asked for it?

ULRICH: The women asked for it. For many of us, we think that the women's rights movement is about seizing power over men who appear to be controlling our lives, right to wages, right to divorce, right to enter any profession we would like. In truth, many Mormon women already had those rights. And when they acted publicly in 1870, when this discussion was going on, they astonished the world by creating a very large meeting to defend polygamy, which one woman expressed as the right to choose my own husband.

Now, I think we have to look at that public demonstration in behalf of polygamy in more than one way. These were women who had suffered the loss of homes, had suffered incredible hardships - through the persecution..."

"

GROSS: So something I found very interesting, you quote a reporter from New Jersey who wrote, what is the use of women's suffrage if it is to be used to bolster up an institution so degrading to the sex and demoralizing to society? And he's referring, there, to plural marriage. But then, two famous suffragists, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, support suffrage in Utah and say, you know, polygamy and monogamy, they're both oppressive systems for women.

And Stanton says, the condition of women is slavery today and must be so, so long as they are shut out of the world of work, helpless dependents on man for bread. So I think it's really interesting to see these two suffragists basically say, oh, you think plural marriage is oppressive? Well, look at your own marriage. Your own monogamous marriage is oppressive to women, too.

ULRICH: Yes, absolutely. They're talking about laws. Specific laws, in the 19th century, was oppressive. Many states still followed the common law Doctrine of Coverture, which declared a woman civilly dead once she married. It's not just...

GROSS: So she had no legal rights over her money, her property. She had no ownership over them.

ULRICH: Her money, her - her money, her property - she couldn't sue or take a case to court except under a father or a husband - so dependency. The right to divorce - although divorce laws were greatly liberalized in the 19th century in most parts of the country, it was definitely - you had to prove either adultery - it took a while for physical abuse to be grounds for divorce.

Utah had no fault divorce from the beginning. It was very, very open and pretty common. And particularly, I think that made plural marriage workable. If you didn't like it, you could leave. And there was no real stigma, which is what's interesting. Well, I can't say that. Of course, there must have been. People may have looked down on other people. But people who were high authorities in the church had multiple divorces. Women who were divorced went on to marry somebody higher up in the hierarchy. It's a very different world than we imagine. And so instead of comparing plural marriage in the 19th century to our notions of women's rights today, we need to compare plural marriage, monogamy and then other institutions that really distressed people in the 19th century, like prostitution for example, different kinds of bigamous relationships.

So Mormons would argue, many American men have multiple sexual partners. They're just not responsible. They don't acknowledge them. They don't give them dignity. They don't legitimate their children. So polygamy is a solution to the horrendous licentiousness of other Americans. Seems like a strange argument to us today, but in this era, it made sense to some people.

GROSS: Well, another thing about the early divorce law in Utah - didn't that also make it easier for women in monogamous marriages - and maybe monogamous marriages outside of the Mormon faith - to divorce their husbands and enter into a plural marriage with a Mormon family?

ULRICH: Yes. We think of marriage in the 19th century as a very stable institution supported by laws - strict laws, hard to be divorced, et cetera, et cetera. But the major means of divorce in the 19th century was probably just leaving town...."

"ULRICH: And men did that more easily than women. But bigamy was pretty common in the 19th century. What's interesting about the Mormons is they sanctified new relationships for women who had fled abusive or alcoholic husbands. A number of these married both monogamously and polygamous among the Latter-day Saints. And they were welcomed into the community and not stigmatized.

One woman said that when Joseph Smith married her, even though she was legally married to somebody in South Carolina - you know, it was a long ways away - it was like receiving golden apples in baskets of silver. That is, she was not an outcast woman. She was a woman who had made her own choice and had left a bad situation, and now she was going to enter a relationship with a man she could admire."

That's interesting.  It's kind of discouraging that Mormons pushed for women's suffrage just to stick it to those who thought Mormonism made women more subordinate.  

I think Ulrich's take is interesting, not that it shows that their were fruits of polygamy, even if she claims that.  It seems clear her point is more that they learned to make it work in different ways, even if ultimately they gave it up.  I think making it work doesn't show the good fruit of polygamy, particularly since, each and every good that came from Utah society back then could have come with or without polygamy.  Perhaps Mormons would have found other reason to push for women's suffrage, other than the "we want to stick it to the masses who think Mormonism causes women more subordination".  

[Bernard Gui]

Seems to me the only important “fruit” of Jacob 2 is the seed raised to the Lord. 

[Analytics]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Lucy Walker's father gave his approval.  Admittedly after the fact since he was on a mission, but when he returned he approved.

• When father returned from his mission, the matter being fully explained in connection with the doctrine, received his endorsement and all parties concerned received his approbation.
  William Holmes Walker, Reminiscence and Diary, 7–10

Thanks--I'm always happy to update my position based on new information.

Of course, you could frame Joseph's "invitation" as being pure as snow. But that doesn't change the fact that had Joseph's wife, Lucy Walker's father, or the Saints in general found out about such "invitations", it would have been superlatively scandalous in every sense of the word.

[stemelbow]

31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Seems to me the only important “fruit” of Jacob 2 is the seed raised to the Lord. 

 Can God not do so without polygamy?  How does polygamy raise up seed unto Him?  

Quote

Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

Why was Joseph commanded to live polygamy?  To raise up seed unto God?  Let's see...zero children in those relationships have been identified.  hmm...

Were children of polygamy any more raised up to God than those not of polygamy?  

"well some leaders came from polygamous parents".  Yes and other leaders did not.  Were the ones who came from polygamous marriages better leaders than those who did not?  My goodness, that would be a tough determination since quality of leadership is so subjective.  

Jacob 2 again:

Quote

Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

So God wanted to raise up seed from the loins of Joseph by not practicing polygamy.  But later when God chooses to raise up seed, it is assumed, he commands polygamy.  

Maybe reasonably we can say Jacob 2 doesnt' say God commands polygamy to raise up seed, but commands to raise up seed.  Interestingly concubines were not commanded, at least not that we can see, or unless you ask the now gone Grant Palmer, so why didn't God also command concubines according to the reading people are giving to Jacob 2?

Again Jacob 2:

Quote

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

What was abominable to the Lord?  That these two leaders had many wives and concubines.  I know we like to try and reconcile that with D&C 132, but perhaps we shouldn't try and do that.  Scriptures maybe should not be read univocally.  

It seems to me it is a pretty sketchy effort to read into scripture, outside of D&C 132 that God commanded polygamy.  And if we go with D&C 132, unfortunately, the rules set up therein weren't followed when polygamy was practiced.  This really puts us in a tough spot if we want to assume polygamy as practice in early Mormonism was commanded of God.  

Quote

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

 

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 Can God not do so without polygamy?  How does polygamy raise up seed unto Him?  

Why was Joseph commanded to live polygamy?  To raise up seed unto God?  Let's see...zero children in those relationships have been identified.  hmm...

Were children of polygamy any more raised up to God than those not of polygamy?  

"well some leaders came from polygamous parents".  Yes and other leaders did not.  Were the ones who came from polygamous marriages better leaders than those who did not?  My goodness, that would be a tough determination since quality of leadership is so subjective.  

Jacob 2 again:

So God wanted to raise up seed from the loins of Joseph by not practicing polygamy.  But later when God chooses to raise up seed, it is assumed, he commands polygamy.  

Maybe reasonably we can say Jacob 2 doesnt' say God commands polygamy to raise up seed, but commands to raise up seed.  Interestingly concubines were not commanded, at least not that we can see, or unless you ask the now gone Grant Palmer, so why didn't God also command concubines according to the reading people are giving to Jacob 2?

Again Jacob 2:

What was abominable to the Lord?  That these two leaders had many wives and concubines.  I know we like to try and reconcile that with D&C 132, but perhaps we shouldn't try and do that.  Scriptures maybe should not be read univocally.  

It seems to me it is a pretty sketchy effort to read into scripture, outside of D&C 132 that God commanded polygamy.  And if we go with D&C 132, unfortunately, the rules set up therein weren't followed when polygamy was practiced.  This really puts us in a tough spot if we want to assume polygamy as practice in early Mormonism was commanded of God.  

 

I remember when I was preparing for my mission way back when and I had a missionary prep teacher who also served on the missionary committee for the church.  His advice, when I pressed him for some good answers to the polygamy question, was to simply avoid it as there weren't any real good answers to it.  It was kind of a milk before meat argument or a hope to apply the sunk costs fallacy to the potentially new member.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

 Can God not do so without polygamy?  How does polygamy raise up seed unto Him?  

Brigham Young	56
John Taylor	34
Lorenzo Snow	42
Heber Kimball	66
Orson Pratt	45
Joseph F. Smith	45
William Clayton	42
Orson Hyde	32
Parley Pratt	30
Ezra T. Benson	35
George Q. Cannon	32
Wilford Woodruff	34
George A. Smith	20
Daniel H. Wells	40
Charles C. Rich	51
Amasa M. Lyman	38
Franklin D. Richards	29
Edwin D. Woolley	26
Erastus Snow	37
Newell Whitney	12
TOTAL	746

 

Just these 20 early leaders who were polygamists account for almost 750 children. I imagine the next generation would be numbered in the thousands.  It's plain to see that in about 50 years polygamy served the purpose of quickly "raising seed to the Lord" as the Lord said in Jacob 2, thus giving the Restoration a firm, sudden, and effective foundation. We recognize among these names many that have provided vital and effective leadership to the Church for almost 200 years. This is precisely the purpose stated in Jacob 2. It was discontinued when its purpose was fulfilled.

These comments by D. Michael Quinn could apply to many of them. 

Quote

The Lord, speaking in the Doctrine and Covenants, mentioned one man by name in at least eight revelations. (See D&C 63:45, D&C 72:8, D&C 78:9, D&C 84:112, 114, D&C 93:50, D&C 96:2, D&C 104:39–42, D&C 117:11.) He was a successful businessman, a presiding bishop of the Church, a prominent civic official, and a notable member of his community. Newel Kimball Whitney was also part of a family whose lives, for seven generations, have been closely tied to key events, places, and families in Latter-day Saint history from the beginnings of the Church down to the present. With the eighth generation now rising, we can see the pattern of triumph as well as tragedy, devotion as well as disaffection, prominence as well as obscurity that characterizes the history of the Church itself. The Whitney family, in some ways, was an institution that mirrored that larger institution....

Thus, the Whitney family was linked to the Church by heritage and kinship as well as by commitment. That relationship was reciprocal. The Church was one of the most important influences on the Whitney family, and the family had and still has great impact on the Church through the continuing contribution of its faithful members. The Whitneys are not just a “first” family, however. They are a continuing family that has welcomed in new members from Europe, Latin America, and throughout the world—just like the Church. Whitney descendants have married into families named Scheller, Essig, Ganschow, Martig, Rydbeck, Borg, Grambule, Roza, Nueberger, Wach, Shapiro, and Espinoza. Again, like the Church, the richness of the Whitney roots is reflected in the fruitfulness of the branches. And that heritage is the heritage of all families who find the truthfulness of the gospel in the restored Church.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/12/the-newel-k-whitney-family?lang=eng

 

[ttribe]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just these 20 early leaders who were polygamists account for almost 750 children. I imagine the next generation would be numbered in the thousands.  It's plain to see that in about 50 years polygamy served the purpose of quickly "raising seed to the Lord" as the Lord said in Jacob 2, thus giving the Restoration a firm, sudden, and effective foundation. We recognize among these names many that have provided vital and effective leadership to the Church for almost 200 years. This is precisely the purpose stated in Jacob 2. It was discontinued when its purpose was fulfilled.

 

That's not entirely accurate; let's not create false impressions here.

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Brigham Young	56
John Taylor	34
Lorenzo Snow	42
Heber Kimball	66
Orson Pratt	45
Joseph F. Smith	45
William Clayton	42
Orson Hyde	32
Parley Pratt	30
Ezra T. Benson	35
George Q. Cannon	32
Wilford Woodruff	34
George A. Smith	20
Daniel H. Wells	40
Charles C. Rich	51
Amasa M. Lyman	38
Franklin D. Richards	29
Edwin D. Woolley	26
Erastus Snow	37
Newell Whitney	12
TOTAL	746

 

Just these 20 early leaders who were polygamists account for almost 750 children. I imagine the next generation would be numbered in the thousands.  It's plain to see that in about 50 years polygamy served the purpose of quickly "raising seed to the Lord" as the Lord said in Jacob 2, thus giving the Restoration a firm, sudden, and effective foundation. We recognize among these names many that have provided vital and effective leadership to the Church for almost 200 years. This is precisely the purpose stated in Jacob 2. It was discontinued when its purpose was fulfilled.

The question is would the Church lack leadership without polygamy?  Would more children have been born in the church without polygamy in it's early years?  
The problem is we simply wouldn't know.  Without polygamy would the Church have advanced faster, reaching more people, pulling in more truth?  It's quite possible of course.  Just because these men had many kids on account of their many wives, doesn't mean that the wives if married to other men monogamously, couldn't have afforded the Church more members, with more children raised to the Lord.  Afterall with Brigham only having 56 kids amongst his 55 wives, average a child a wife, it might have been better for all involved and for the raising of children to the Lord if the wives were married to other men and averaged say, 3 or 5 kids per wife.  Instead of 56 (some of whom weren't raised to the LORD, perhaps) there might be 150 or 250 more of which were raised to the LORD.  

Jacob's claim of the Lord having raised seed up without polygamy seems to argue against the claim of few men having many kids is raising seed unto the Lord.  

 

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

These comments by D. Michael Quinn could apply to many of them. 

 

Good for the whitney family.  This has me thinking though.  With the levelling off of Church growth, with the ever decreasing growth rate of the Church, with the younger generations finding an inability to relate to the Church for the most part, perhaps it's time to install polygamy again, then?  Maybe it will start anew the raising of seed to the Lord moreso than we're doing now?  

Or

we can sit idly by and watch our traditions and religion fade away becoming ever more irrelevant.  

Just playing.  If we brought back polygamy, particularly in the way it was practiced amongst the elites seemingly keeping others down, then the religion would likely revert back to a few thousand members.

[JLHPROF]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Just these 20 early leaders who were polygamists account for almost 750 children. I imagine the next generation would be numbered in the thousands.  It's plain to see that in about 50 years polygamy served the purpose of quickly "raising seed to the Lord" as the Lord said in Jacob 2, thus giving the Restoration a firm, sudden, and effective foundation. We recognize among these names many that have provided vital and effective leadership to the Church for almost 200 years. This is precisely the purpose stated in Jacob 2. It was discontinued when its purpose was fulfilled.

I am aware of what the scriptures say about polygamy and raising a righteous seed.
I do think you are overemphasizing that as the only doctrinal reason for polygamy.  The early polygamists rarely named raising a righteous seed as a primary justification.
 

• Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men.
  Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?' It is the only popular religion there...
  BY DN August 6, 1862

• “... [Joseph Smith taught] the doctrine of plural and celestial marriage is the most holy and important doctrine ever revealed to man on the earth, and that without obedience to that principle no man can ever attain to the fullness of exaltation in the celestial glory.” - William Clayton, Joseph Smith's secretary, Historical Record, v. 6, p. 226

• The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on Celestial and plural marriage (D&C 132) and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time hence forth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me. O, what shall I do? If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.”  JS - Contributor, v. 5, p. 259, 1843

Limiting the reason to raising up seed is no more complete than those who previously limited it to caring for widows.  There were numerous reasons, including caring for widows, raising seed, obeying commandment, following eternal order, and a belief that it connected to exaltation.
There was no one solitary purpose for living polygamy.

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Probably, but I'm not sure that means anything significant.  Or maybe I just don't understand what you are asking exactly.

Claims like yours from earlier come to mind.

On 1/3/2018 at 11:15 AM, bluebell said:

And yes, children come in all sorts of ways but when we are talking about polygamy, those specific children come through specific lineages that would not exist without plural marriage.

For example, Heber G. Grant was a product of polygamy and a prophet and president of the LDS church.  His spirit would still have come to earth without polygamy but Jedediah Grant would not have been his father.  His lineage would have been different.

Do you think he could still have become prophet without a polygamy lineage?

What about all the lineages that would have been different without the manifesto?

It's easy to retroactively look at a situation and think that anything different would have been worse. Is it possible that the LDS Church would have been better off without polygamy? Certainly there would have been less persecution.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Claims like yours from earlier come to mind.

Do you think he could still have become prophet without a polygamy lineage?

I don't know.

Like i said before, the scriptures tell us that God can make children out of rocks, so theoretically Grant didn't have to be born at all.  He could have simply appeared from thin air (or any other variation on the same idea could have gotten him to earth at the right time and place).  But, just because something could have happened another way, does that mean that there was no purpose or divine guidance behind how it actually did happen?

Grant's polygamous lineage is what enabled him to become the next prophet (not the lineage itself but being born when and where and to whom he was born directly contributed to him eventually becoming prophet).  Could God have gotten him there a different way?  Yes.  Does that mean that polygamy was unnecessary for Grant becoming prophet?  I don't know.  

The answer to that question depends on whether or not any of the other ways to get Grant to become prophet were valid in God's eyes, and I don't know the answer to that.

Quote

 

What about all the lineages that would have been different without the manifesto?

It's easy to retroactively look at a situation and think that anything different would have been worse. Is it possible that the LDS Church would have been better off without polygamy? Certainly there would have been less persecution.

 

There is no way to know.

Like I said above, it all depends on whether or not God viewed polygamy as necessary and there is no way to prove that He did or didn't.