Article by Benjamin E. Park Re: Dc 132

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

This week, new legislation goes into effect in Utah that decriminalizes polygamy among consenting adults. The development, which was voted on in February, was a long-time coming. But while many decriminalization bills have been proposed over the years—Utah’s polygamy laws are the harshest in the entire country—what made this one successful was not who was involved, but who stood quietly to the side: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

The LDS Church remains a dominant force in the state, and until recently worked hard to cease any attempts to soften the state’s polygamy laws. This time, however, their silence was deafening, and it allowed the bill to pass.

I'd like to see some documentation/scholarship about the Church "until recently work{ing} hard to cease any attempts to soften the state’s polygamy laws."

The article goes on to recite the Church's history of polygamy relative to Utah obtaining statehood.  Then...

Quote

At the heart of the issue is a single, yet overwhelming, scriptural text. Dictated by Joseph Smith on July 12, 1843, and now known as Doctrine and Covenants 132, the manuscript was forged in the fire of marital conflict, secret teachings, and swirling rumors. It was created for an intended audience of one, yet now remains binding on millions. 

And the document’s various legacies continue to shape how the modern LDS tradition views gender, marriage, and the church itself.

Even though the entire text is found in the scriptural books most Latter-day Saints carry with them to Sunday meetings—either in book form or, increasingly, as an app—few members of the faith understand the document’s contested origins. And fewer still understand how it continues to shape the religious community around them. 

He then goes back to 1843 and describes the origins of D&C 132.  He includes a lot of interesting stuff, but no citations.  Then...

Quote

But even then, it wasn’t the doctrine of polygamy that was disavowed, but merely its practice. Indeed, the fact that polygamy was concluded with a “Declaration,” rather than a revelation, reflected the anxiety over whether a doctrine could ever really be recalled.

I wonder if this is editorializing on Park's part, or if he has historical evidence to back up the purported significance of OD-1 being a "'declaration,' rather than a revelation."  I'm skeptical of this point, and of the idea that it "reflected ... anxiety."  This seems to be mindreading and editorializing.

Quote

And because the text of the polygamy revelation is still part of the LDS canon, the theology enshrined within it has continued to have a presence in the modern church. Indeed, portions of the revelation are among the most popular among the Saints due to the fact that they contained the clearest teachings concerning the eternal nature of marriage. 

The passages that explicitly justify polygamy, on the other hand, are often glossed over or ignored altogether, seen as irrelevant to a modern church that has embraced monogamy.

I don't think this is accurate.  I think the Church has done pretty good at contextualizing the practice of polygamy.  Not glossing over.  Not ignoring altogether.

More:

Quote

In recent years the church has distanced itself from those ideas, however. Though the ‘Gospel Topics’ essay (similar to Catholic Dogma) they produced on the issue falls short of explicitly declaring the past practice a human mistake, though it doesn’t reject that possibility, either. Once believed to be a divinely appointed doctrine, then, the racial restriction is now mostly seen as a bygone, if uncomfortable, error.

Could the same conclusion ever be reached with Mormonism’s other defining nineteenth-century practice, polygamy?

The lack of revelatory provenance for the priesthood ban is, in my view, a pretty big distinction between it and polygamy.  Park seems to agree:

Quote

Again, the biggest stumbling block is D&C 132. Like modern adherents of just about every other religion, modern Mormons have become increasingly capable, if begrudgingly so, at ignoring uncomfortable statements, beliefs, and practices of past leaders when they clash with modern priorities. But the presence of a written revelation makes it a much more difficult issue.

Yep.

Quote

Modern Mormonism prides itself on its doctrine of an open canon—the belief that the corpus of scripture can be expanded and augmented by modern-day proclamations from prophetic leaders. But what happens when contemporary values, like gender equality and monogamous marriage, clash with canonized doctrines, like polygamy? Can the faith ever revoke canonized teachings, or would such a move strip their leaders of necessary authority?

I think it would be pretty hard to "revoke" D&C 132, or the authorized practice of polygamy.

Quote

The LDS tradition points toward a flexible future predicated upon revelatory intervention. But until Mormons find a way to simultaneously engage the legacies of their past—including Smith’s revelation on polygamy—contemporary Saints will live in a state of constant anxiety.

This seems rather an overstatement.  I'm not persuaded that polygamy causes a "state of constant anxiety" in the Church.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not persuaded that polygamy causes a "state of constant anxiety" in the Church.

This seems to be a statement that looks good on paper, but isn't really born out by fact.

Personally, I can go 3 or 4 minutes between thoughts about polygamy if I try hard enough

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

.................................................I don't think this is accurate.  I think the Church has done pretty good at contextualizing the practice of polygamy.  Not glossing over.  Not ignoring altogether.................................

I think it would be pretty hard to "revoke" D&C 132, or the authorized practice of polygamy.

The main point of D&C 132 is eternal marriage, a key LDS touchstone, but the LDS Church has never stated that polygyny is not doctrinal.  Indeed, even though the practice of plural marriage is in abeyance, Carol Lynn Pearson finds it a very annoying and disturbing presence even today (when no one is permitted to actively practice it).  If it had been extirpated, how would Carol Lynn's anger be so palpable.

Quote

This seems rather an overstatement.  I'm not persuaded that polygamy causes a "state of constant anxiety" in the Church.........................

For those who are presentists, the legacy of polygyny will always be disturbing.  To their way of thinking, all past behavior must be separated from then contemporary cultural norms, and instead judged entirely in light of our modern cultural values.  Thus, the biblical Patriarchs are craven sex fiends for their frank and open practice of polygyny, and this must necessarily include condemnation of God Himself for explicitly giving multiple wives to King David (II Sam 12:7), or for the messianic king having multiple "wives" (Ps 45:9, which Orson Pratt read correctly with the Geneva Bible).

Edited May 14, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Kenngo1969]

58 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This seems to be a statement that looks good on paper, but isn't really born out by fact.

Personally, I can go 3 or 4 minutes between thoughts about polygamy if I try hard enough

Okay, well and good, but how much anxiety do those thoughts cause you (or perhaps, how much anxiety do they cause your wife) when they do occur?

Edited May 14, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Islander]

42 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This seems to be a statement that looks good on paper, but isn't really born out by fact.

Personally, I can go 3 or 4 minutes between thoughts about polygamy if I try hard enough

Agreed. Because, for the most part, most saints are not even aware nor do they concern themselves with this doctrine.

It is indeed a hurdle to overcome once time and study on the matter has taken place. And, one is left to ponder whether the Declaration ending the practice of polygamy was in fact revelation or, was it political expediency. The text itself is not completely transparent for me. Also, it could be argued, that if it was political expediency, the Church has "harkened onto men rather than onto God" (emphasis mine) and caved in this issue to a government mandate. Also, it raises the issue of the Church (in its entirety) for over 100 years living in rebellion against the word and commandment of the Lord. 

In the other hand, revelation can explains the changes brought about by the Declaration. But now that polygamy is no longer a crime, will some begin to ponder if the practice should be restarted (at least in Utah) within the Church? After all, even if (hypothetically speaking) my wife would oppose, I could take another wife and it would be right in the eyes of the Lord (D&C 132:65)

Food for thought.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay, well and good, but how much anxiety do those thoughts cause you (or perhaps, how much anxiety do they cause your wife) when they do occur?

I remain at least partially functional. 😁

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

Agreed. Because, for the most part, most saints are not even aware nor do they concern themselves with this doctrine.

It is indeed a hurdle to overcome once time and study on the matter has taken place. And, one is left to ponder whether the Declaration ending the practice of polygamy was in fact revelation or, was it political expediency. The text itself is not completely transparent for me. Also, it could be argued, that if it was political expediency, the Church has "harkened onto men rather than onto God" (emphasis mine) and caved in this issue to a government mandate. Also, it raises the issue of the Church (in its entirety) for over 100 years living in rebellion against the word and commandment of the Lord. 

In the other hand, revelation can explains the changes brought about by the Declaration. But now that polygamy is no longer a crime, will some begin to ponder if the practice should be restarted (at least in Utah) within the Church? After all, even if (hypothetically speaking) my wife would oppose, I could take another wife and it would be right in the eyes of the Lord (D&C 132:65)

Food for thought.

Some will wonder if the practice should be reinstated, but since it's out of my hands I don't imagine I'll bother. The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. If He wants it back or is willing to countenance it, He'll make it known. 

My perspective on the question of revelation vs. political expediency is that it's kind of irrelevant. I should state that I see no reason why it wouldn't be revelation. The Lord has promised that this dispensation will not prematurely close. The priesthood will not be taken from the Earth again. The survival of the Church is on the Lord's surely ponderous list of priorities. For the Church to have resisted the United States at that point, as President Woodruff stated, would have entailed further recriminations from the government, threatening the material survival of the Church. Worse, it would have limited the ability of the Church to carry out saving ordinances and spread the Gospel. There's plenty of reasons, including those beyond our sight, for the Lord to end polygamy when He did.

Even if President Woodruff didn't receive a specific authorizing revelation, he and the other Apostles had the stewardship over the Church. I presume that includes the authority to act in order to preserve it. It's well known that not every action taken by the authorities of the Church has to be God-breathed. It's possible that President Woodruff did it under his own initiative, but I think it possible that the Lord approved of it or at least tolerates it. 

[Islander]

36 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Even if President Woodruff didn't receive a specific authorizing revelation, he and the other Apostles had the stewardship over the Church. I presume that includes the authority to act in order to preserve it. It's well known that not every action taken by the authorities of the Church has to be God-breathed. It's possible that President Woodruff did it under his own initiative, but I think it possible that the Lord approved of it or at least tolerates it. 

However, if that was the case, it could be argued that the leadership disobeyed God, ignored the commandment and have been leading the Church into rebellion for over 100 years in order to avoid persecution. The Savior said many times that we ought to be willing to suffer for the faith or we would not be worthy of eternal life. Your position would also imply that mere men can overpower, derail and negate the word and will of God with their own political musings. That would paint a pretty weak and inconsequential picture of who God is in general. So, it does matter if it was revelation or not and we should be able to defend that position.

Here are just a few instances in the scriptures of what we are to do when faced with persecution:

1 Peter 3:14

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled,

1 Peter 4:16

but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.

1 Peter 5:10

After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.

Matthew 5:11

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

Matthew 10:22

You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

Matthew 10:39

He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

Matthew 19:29

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Islander said:

Agreed. Because, for the most part, most saints are not even aware nor do they concern themselves with this doctrine.

It is indeed a hurdle to overcome once time and study on the matter has taken place. And, one is left to ponder whether the Declaration ending the practice of polygamy was in fact revelation or, was it political expediency. The text itself is not completely transparent for me. Also, it could be argued, that if it was political expediency, the Church has "harkened onto men rather than onto God" (emphasis mine) and caved in this issue to a government mandate. Also, it raises the issue of the Church (in its entirety) for over 100 years living in rebellion against the word and commandment of the Lord. 

In the other hand, revelation can explains the changes brought about by the Declaration. But now that polygamy is no longer a crime, will some begin to ponder if the practice should be restarted (at least in Utah) within the Church? After all, even if (hypothetically speaking) my wife would oppose, I could take another wife and it would be right in the eyes of the Lord (D&C 132:65)

Food for thought.

Political expediency?  Hmm.  How very presentist of you.  It would seem, contrary to your high-nosed declaration that you have thought out these matters while the rest of us surely would be troubled by the abandonment of polygyny if only we had bothered to study it as much as you claim to have done isn't borne out by the facts.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had been disincorporated, its members had been disenfranchised, and its leaders were being hounded into hiding and thrown into prison when they were located.  Had that entire chain of events been permitted to run its course, neither the Church of Jesus Christ nor the State of Utah would exist today as we know them.  You think that any or all of that was, is, and/or would be "the will of the Lord"?  I don't.  You think that a Declaration that, thankfully, put a stop to all of that is a failure to "harken" [sic] to the will of the Lord?  I don't.  Wilford Woodruff was as much a Prophet of God as were any of his predecessors and successors who have also worn that mantle.

You know, just food for thought.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, Islander said:

... Here are just a few instances in the scriptures of what we are to do when faced with persecution:

1 Peter 3:14

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled,

1 Peter 4:16

but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.

1 Peter 5:10

After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.

Matthew 5:11

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

Matthew 10:22

You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

Matthew 10:39

He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

Matthew 19:29

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.

I have no problem agreeing with any or with all of those scriptures, but I hope you'll pardon me if I'm reticent to use any of them to indict any of the former Brethren.  Perhaps you should ask yourself, to borrow and slightly alter a phrase used by Elder Glen L. Pace, if it's true that you would have died for the Restored Gospel in the time of Wilford Woodruff, whether you're doing enough for President Russell M. Nelson today.

[JamesBYoung]

Taylor died because he could not exercise in the last year of hiding out from the feds.  He died horribly.  If he had given up, the feds would have allowed him resume his walking schedule, but he died a martyr to the faith.

Woodruff believed the same thing, until he realized (revelation or critical thinking IDK) Christ was not coming anytime soon, much to millennialist beliefs of Joseph Jr and Brigham and so many of the early Saints.

One WW realized that, whether political expediency or revelation, saving the Temples and the ongoing temple work from being interrupted by federal seizure of them became his consuming, overwhelming goals.

I, for one, am glad of what Woodruff did.  Political expediency?  IDK.  Presentism is never pretty.  I am just glad he did what he did.

[Islander]

11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Political expediency?  Hmm.  How very presentist of you.  It would seem, contrary to your high-nosed declaration that you have thought out these matters while the rest of us surely would be troubled by the abandonment of polygyny if only we had bothered to study it as much as you claim to have done isn't borne out by the facts.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had been disincorporated, its members had been disenfranchised, and its leaders were being hounded into hiding and thrown into prison when they were located.  Had that entire chain of events been permitted to run its course, neither the Church of Jesus Christ nor the State of Utah would exist today as we know them.  You think that any or all of that was, is, and/or would be "the will of the Lord"?  I don't.  You think that a Declaration that, thankfully, put a stop to all of that is a failure to "harken" [sic] to the will of the Lord?  I don't.  Wilford Woodruff was as much a Prophet of God as were any of his predecessors and successors who have also worn that mantle.

You know, just food for thought.

So, what you are saying is that The Almighty God gave us commandments, knowing that the government of the US, mere men would be able to force His people to renounce His law and commandment, deny the truth and be forced to bow down to the law of mere mortals. And He would be be powerless to stop it? That would make for a very puny god.

What I am trying to say is that it DOES matter that the Declaration was revelation vs just bowing down in fear to the laws of men against the Law of God. It does matter because we have to be able to defend that position but not by alluding to political reasoning (as you have done). Because otherwise it is a very dangerous present. The government may impose any kind of onerous demand on the Church and force it to do....(fill in the blank). And we, being willing to, either suffer and be willing to stand on the word of God, or fold and break the covenants and promises we have made, according to His word and revelation. That is my point. 

[smac97]

12 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Some will wonder if the practice should be reinstated, but since it's out of my hands I don't imagine I'll bother. The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away. If He wants it back or is willing to countenance it, He'll make it known. 

My perspective on the question of revelation vs. political expediency is that it's kind of irrelevant. I should state that I see no reason why it wouldn't be revelation. The Lord has promised that this dispensation will not prematurely close. The priesthood will not be taken from the Earth again. The survival of the Church is on the Lord's surely ponderous list of priorities. For the Church to have resisted the United States at that point, as President Woodruff stated, would have entailed further recriminations from the government, threatening the material survival of the Church. Worse, it would have limited the ability of the Church to carry out saving ordinances and spread the Gospel. There's plenty of reasons, including those beyond our sight, for the Lord to end polygamy when He did.

I quite agree.  There seems to be ample precedent for the proposition that God takes into account the circumstances in which His covenant people are found.

Consider Matthew 2 (emphases added):

Quote

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judæa: for thus it is written by the prophet,
6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what time the star appeared.
8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.
10 When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
11 ¶ And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.
12 And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.
13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
16 ¶ Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.
17 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying,
18 In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.
19 ¶ But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
20 Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.
21 And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.

God gave guidance (revelation) to Joseph through a dream to take his family and flee into Egypt.  Because Herod was a threat.

God later gave further guidance (revelation) to Joseph through another dream in which an angel appeared and told Joseph to return to Israel.  Because Herod was no longer a threat.

These revelations were given as a consequence to events in the world.  Many similar instances of such revelations are found throughout the scriptures.

So if God can give revelation responsive to events in the world, isn't it possible that He gave a revelation responsive to, say, the circumstances of the 19th-century Saints in relation to polygamy (and governmental intervention in, and prosecution of it)?

And if God can, in fact, give such responsive-to-events-in-the-world revelations, then OD1 could be both revelation and responsive to actions taken by the federal government under the Edmunds-Tucker Act in the late 19th century.

12 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Even if President Woodruff didn't receive a specific authorizing revelation, he and the other Apostles had the stewardship over the Church. I presume that includes the authority to act in order to preserve it. It's well known that not every action taken by the authorities of the Church has to be God-breathed. It's possible that President Woodruff did it under his own initiative, but I think it possible that the Lord approved of it or at least tolerates it. 

It seems, though, that President Woodruff did receive revelation on the matter.  See here (emphasis added) :

Quote

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, Islander said:

So, what you are saying is that The Almighty God gave us commandments, knowing that the government of the US, mere men would be able to force His people to renounce His law and commandment, deny the truth and be forced to bow down to the law of mere mortals. And He would be be powerless to stop it? That would make for a very puny god.

What I am trying to say is that it DOES matter that the Declaration was revelation vs just bowing down in fear to the laws of men against the Law of God. It does matter because we have to be able to defend that position but not by alluding to political reasoning (as you have done). Because otherwise it is a very dangerous present. The government may impose any kind of onerous demand on the Church and force it to do....(fill in the blank). And we, being willing to, either suffer and be willing to stand on the word of God, or fold and break the covenants and promises we have made, according to His word and revelation. That is my point. 

Well, perhaps one day, you will be the president  and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we will finally have someone at the helm with the intestinal fortitude to build the Far West Temple, the Jackson County Temple (and to fulfill the prophecy of establishing Zion there), to reclaim the Kirtland Temple for the Church of Jesus Christ, and to rectify the myriad other instances in which faithless Saints have allowed mortal circumstances to impede the accomplishment of the Lord's objectives.   Good luck!

Edited May 15, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

[Smac97, quoting Wilford Woodruff] The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

Smac97, you obviously just don't get it!   President Woodruff simply was faithless!  He lacked the requisite cojones to do what the Lord wanted him to do in continuing the practice of polygyny!  Now, if only Islander had been at the helm ...

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Well, perhaps one day, you will be the president  and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we will finally have someone at the helm with the intestinal fortitude to build the Far West Temple, the Jackson County Temple (and to fulfill the prophecy of establishing Zion there), to reclaim the Kirtland Temple for the Church of Jesus Christ, and to rectify the myriad other instances in which faithless Saints have allowed mortal circumstances to impede the accomplishment of the Lord's objectives.   Good luck!

Brother, all I am saying is that there are thousands in the pews at church today whose faith has not been tested. In many parts of the world calling yourself a christian puts a target in your back. Would you be a christian if your home would be in danger of being fire bombed, or your children threatened and harassed in school and you fired from your job? American saints have lived in a bubble far too long to the point, that I am not sure if they truly have what it takes to make it thru the narrow gate that leads to eternal life. By far, we have avoided persecution for over a hundred years. And bending our knee to the government to avoid persecution is the wide and broad way to perdition.

As far as the rest, I have not such lofty ideals, brother. I just want to serve my Lord and my God. 😉

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, Islander said:

Brother, all I am saying is that there are thousands in the pews at church today whose faith has not been tested. In many parts of the world calling yourself a christian puts a target in your back. Would you be a christian if your home would be in danger of being fire bombed, or your children threatened and harassed in school and you fired from your job? American saints have lived in a bubble far too long to the point, that I am not sure if they truly have what it takes to make it thru the narrow gate that leads to eternal life. By far, we have avoided persecution for over a hundred years. And bending our knee to the government to avoid persecution is the wide and broad way to perdition.

As far as the rest, I have not such lofty ideals, brother. I just want to serve my Lord and my God. 😉

You seem to be moving the goal posts.  First, you intimate that it is only because of President Wilford Woodruff's faithlessness that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was forced to abandon polygyny, then you say that "there are thousands in the pews at church today whose faith has not been tested," but, surely you would have had more faith than the spineless President Wilford Woodruff.  And thanks for your pious assurances that all you want to do is serve the Lord.  Isn't your (conveniently-anonymous) indictment of the early Saints for their abandonment of polygyny, presumably from the comfort and safety of your secure, climate-controlled environs, a symptom of the problem, as well?

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

This seems rather an overstatement.  I'm not persuaded that polygamy causes a "state of constant anxiety" in the Church.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree--its an overstatement.  It seems to cause a condition of discomfort though, if ever anyone wishes to discuss it.  I don't know how many women, for instance, have suggested, if polygamy comes back, "I'm leaving" or "I won't allow my husband.." or some other such comment.  Most, men and women, seem to tense up a bit often grow quiet and hope the discussion passes if ever Mormon polygamy gets discussed in any amount of detail.   Not many, if any, take the past revelation from God seriously on the matter.  Not many, if any, actually think polygamy is any where near the more heavenly of marriage alternatives when compared to monogamy.  

That's all a good thing.  Polygamy doesn't really stand much of a chance to work it's way back in to the mainstream Mormon church.  If it did, judging by most comments and reactions of the faithful, the Church would disappear.  

[Islander]

44 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You seem to be moving the goal posts.  First, you intimate that it is only because of President Wilford Woodruff's faithlessness that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was forced to abandon polygyny, then you say that "there are thousands in the pews at church today whose faith has not been tested," but, surely you would have had more faith than the spineless President Wilford Woodruff.  And thanks for your pious assurances that all you want to do is serve the Lord.  Isn't your (conveniently-anonymous) indictment of the early Saints for their abandonment of polygyny, presumably from the comfort and safety of your secure, climate-controlled environs, a symptom of the problem, as well?

I fear we are talking across here. But I'll try one more time. 

All I said was that we have to be able to stand firmly on the fact that the Declaration was revelation or, run the risk of being seen that we are more concern for survival than standing on the word of God. That come what may, we should be able to do so rather than bow down to governments and mere men. If we are to suffer for the Gospel sake, so be it. And I quoted scriptures to that effect. 

I said in my last post that we have, by far, lived free of persecution in this country for over a 100 years. And that I am not sure many around me are worthy to bear the name of Christ since it is really easy to do so here vs in other countries where it actually means something when your very live and livelihood are at stake. That we should be ready to endure persecution rather than bow down to government and break the law of God. 

You can disagree with me but I believe the scriptures bear witness to the fact that this is where we should stand on this issue.

[Kenngo1969]

5 minutes ago, Islander said:

I fear we are talking across here.

Surely.   Perhaps I'm simply too stupid to get your point.   It's easy for you to indict the early Saints and President Woodruff for not "standing for the word of God" and for "bow[ing] down to governments and to mere men."   If only!  Tsk-tsk-tsk!!

[Islander]

19 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Surely.   Perhaps I'm simply too stupid to get your point.   It's easy for you to indict the early Saints and President Woodruff for not "standing for the word of God" and for "bow[ing] down to governments and to mere men."   If only!  Tsk-tsk-tsk!!

Yeah, I know. But the facts are what they are. You may not like where you stand but...

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

This seems rather an overstatement.  I'm not persuaded that polygamy causes a "state of constant anxiety" in the Church.

I agree--its an overstatement.  It seems to cause a condition of discomfort though, if ever anyone wishes to discuss it. 

Sure.  That's understandable.  There are a few reasons for this, I think.

First, there are the "prurient" and "gotcha" elements.  Discussions of polygamy - particularly online, and particularly involving critics of the Church - very often veer into lurid, voyeuristic territory.  Latter-day Saints are not going to be comfortable with critics speculating/fantasizing about the sex lives of polygamists.  Keeping such discussions tactful, respectful, moderate, and so on is quite difficult when one side of the discussion is bound and determined to make the discussion - and the lives of the long-deceased individuals being discussed - as sensationalized and racy as possible.  Brian and Laura Hales are, in my view, at the forefront of handling these sensitive issues.  They do so with candor, but also with tact and respect.  

The "gotcha" element is also pretty strong.  Imagine some online stranger approaching an observant Jew and says "Hey, I'm curious about the Jewish practice of Metzitzah b'peh, which is where the Mohel 'uses his mouth to suck blood away from the baby’s circumcision wound as part of the circumcision ritual.'  How 'bout we have a long frank discussion about that?"  I think the Jewish fellow would likely feel "a condition of discomfort" about such a proposed discussion.

Second, the concept of polygamy is sociologically "icky."  I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy.  I'm not particularly comfortable with it.  I do not understand it.  So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.  Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.  Neither does the slaying of Nehor.  Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").  And so on.  There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).  Such contextualization takes some real time and study and effort.  I think most Latter-day Saints are just not situated to have in-depth discussions about such a difficult, complex and subjectively "icky" topic. 

Third, the concept of polygamy is difficult to discuss because it is not only sociologically "icky," it's also sacred.  The Church enacted polygamy by revelation, and ended it by revelation.  It's a part of the Restored Gospel.  D&C 132 is still there.  Not disavowed. 

Fourth, not only is the doctrine of polygamy tough to accept, its practice in the 19th century had some substantial problems.  "Love thy neighbor" is straightforward and hard to criticize.  "Enter into a polygamous marriage" has a lot more moral ambiguity about it.  People, both those who were called upon to practice polygamy and those of us who look back on that practice, had/have some quite legitimate concerns about it, as I've commented previously here:

Quote

Polygamy is a toughie.  However, its practice in the 19th-century Church is not the first time that the disciples of Jesus have been asked to live out-of-step with their neighbors, including those who are members of the faith.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."   Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

Polygamy is a difficult topic to address because it was divinely mandated, but sociologically disliked (both then and now).  That there were some elements of deceit in its practice by some makes the matter much more challenging and complex.  Consequently, I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept.

Fifth, I think few Latter-day Saints are sufficiently informed about the particulars and nuances of the 19th century practice of polygamy, such that they feel comfortable entering into a candid discussion about it.  We know the general parameters, but few are familiar with, say, the particulars of Joseph Smith's polygamy.  Not being sufficiently prepared to address such matters in an adversarial discussion, I think most Latter-day Saints are understandably uncomfortable about having such discussions.

I'm sure there are other factors out there, as well.

Quote

I don't know how many women, for instance, have suggested, if polygamy comes back, "I'm leaving" or "I won't allow my husband.." or some other such comment. 

I'm not sure we need to go looking for hypothetical dealbreakers.

Quote

Most, men and women, seem to tense up a bit often grow quiet and hope the discussion passes if ever Mormon polygamy gets discussed in any amount of detail.  

Yep.  See above for some reasons why.

Quote

Not many, if any, take the past revelation from God seriously on the matter. 

I don't agree with you on this.  I think most informed Latter-day Saints take the revelations "seriously."  But I think most of us do not find it particularly relevant to us.  We are not called upon to practice it.  We are likewise not commanded to perform animal sacrifices.  That doesn't mean we don't take the biblical descriptions of it "seriously," just that it's not particularly relevant to us in the here and now.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 15, 2020 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

10 minutes ago, Islander said:

Yeah, I know. But the facts are what they are. You may not like where you stand but...

Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean!   (I like where I stand just fine, thanks!  I'm not the one who's throwing the Lord's Anointed under the bus!   And I'm thrilled by your implication that you're the enlightened soul who is dealing in hard facts that ... dang it! ... the rest of us simply are too blind to see!  Alas!) 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Damien the Leper]

48 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean!   (I like where I stand just fine, thanks!  I'm not the one who's throwing the Lord's Anointed under the bus!   And I'm thrilled by your implication that you're the enlightened soul who is dealing in hard facts that ... dang it! ... the rest of us simply are too blind to see!  Alas!) 

To be fair, no one is saying the saints weren't ready or prepared to live polygny and so the Lord changed His mind. The convenience of such a stance and the argument of statehood for Utah would be too obvious. The Lord doesn't work in convenience. He is above such nonsense.

[OGHoosier]

20 hours ago, Islander said:

However, if that was the case, it could be argued that the leadership disobeyed God, ignored the commandment and have been leading the Church into rebellion for over 100 years in order to avoid persecution. The Savior said many times that we ought to be willing to suffer for the faith or we would not be worthy of eternal life. Your position would also imply that mere men can overpower, derail and negate the word and will of God with their own political musings. That would paint a pretty weak and inconsequential picture of who God is in general. So, it does matter if it was revelation or not and we should be able to defend that position.

Here are just a few instances in the scriptures of what we are to do when faced with persecution:

1 Peter 3:14

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be troubled,

1 Peter 4:16

but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.

1 Peter 5:10

After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.

Matthew 5:11

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

Matthew 10:22

You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

Matthew 10:39

He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

Matthew 19:29

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.

You make some good points, Islander. I didn't mean to imply that it is okay for us to shirk persecution if the Lord wants us to endure it. But the Saints did endure it. Apostles were imprisoned, John Taylor died in hiding, the Edmuinds-Tucker Act made the Church a pariah. Furthermore, I will not feel comfortable at the last day if I have to look Wilford Woodruff (a veteran of the expulsions from Kirtland, Missouri, and Nauvoo) in the eyes and tell him that I thought he wasn't resolute enough under fire. You are right, I am an American Saint and have lived in a bubble. I have no right to critique him. He's sacrificed a lot more than I have. 

But in any case, that little bit of temporizing that I just did is irrelevant. The greatest risk posed by government retribution against the Church was the risk that the work of spreading the gospel would be critically hindered. Polygamy was, at BEST, a secondary practice and doctrine. The doctrine of eternal marriage is not threatened by its absence. Neither is our Christology, our soteriology, and our possession of the true priesthood. Those things do not hinge on polygamy. Polygamy is not an essential ordinance. Polygamy is secondary. To persist in it, however, would have entailed the seizing of the temples and the cessation of those ordinances. It would have entailed the deconstruction of the Church as an institution. The faith would be forced underground. How could we have mounted a proselytization effort to sound the gospel in every ear? How could we have provided saving ordinances? The Church would have been reduced to something akin to the house-churches of the New Testament, believers meeting in secret. Look how that turned out. The Christian faith expanded but in the process was corrupted and lost the ordinances and true doctrine. That is not an option. 

The long and the short of it is, to hang on to polygamy, a secondary practice, would jeopardize the primary imperative of the Church.

Finally, I agree with @smac97 above. President Woodruff made it clear that he received revelation on the topic, including potentially the wording of the Declaration. That's only infeasible if you presume that God never addresses earthly governments or commands His servants to deal with them in certain ways. The most cursory reading of the scriptures will reveal the untenability of that position. The God who commands His faithful to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's can command His servants to accommodate those governments in order to advance the work on earth. It seems to me that God does not violently overthrow whichever governments displease Him at any given point. His timetable is long, His vision infinite. I'll trust Him to set the course. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by OGHoosier