New Book on Polygamy

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The Church as an organization has rules, regulations, administrative oversight, and so on.

As you pointed out plural marriages after 1890 were against Church laws.  That end was even approved by a common consent vote. But they were permitted to keep going by leaders.  The historical record is clear that Pres. Woodruff even exercised plausible deniability in his official capacity as Pres of the Church.  Historian Michael Quinn wrote much about this division, both in Joseph's day (his Origins of Power book) and post manifesto.

Yes, President Woodruff often allowed George Q Cannon to be the voice and decision-maker in these situations. President Cannon made several trips to the colonies during the last years of the 19th century. He also sent letters, apparently written in a form of code to Patriarch Alexander F. MacDonald who did a lot of the marrying. Joseph F Smith apparently did the same via his counselors.

I once had a great conversation with Michael Quinn about these things. Later I enjoyed interacting with Will Bagley about Isaac Haight's time in Mexico and his death in Thatcher, AZ after he was requested to leave Mexico in 1886. On his way back to meet with John Taylor who was hiding out at that time, Haight had a heart attack and passed away. A. O. Woodruff's, John W. Taylor's, and the Snow/Teasdale/Ivins houses are all still standing and inhabited in Colonia Juarez. Erastus Snow built the first two story house in Colonia Juarez and planned on moving here, but died just a few weeks prior to coming. Three apostles in succession then used the house to live in on a short term basis. The house still exists, but is in rough shape. Unfortunately Anthony Ivins' magnificent home that he built later on in Colonia Juarez was demolished to build new buildings for the academy. I would have loved to have seen that home. Sorry  for the digression.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Navidad

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not really though.  We reject the protestant belief that scripture is infallible, right? 

If I may, I would respectfully suggest that infallibility is not a "Protestant" term. Infallibility is perchance better characterized as an Evangelical term that the Bible is trustworthy and means what it says - it won't let you down. In that sense, it might be like what testifiers mean when they say the church is "true." It might also mean it is without error in a doctrinal sense.

The other and somewhat different term is the term innerancy which is used by non-LDS Christian Fundamentalists and many conservative Evangelicals. Many Protestants would not use either word at all to refer to the Bible. Inerrancy infers that the Bible is literally without error in all its text and words and should be taken as literally as possible. It gets down to the text word by word. Obviously the latter still allows for interpretation of scripture depending on the literary style. Inerrantists don't believe that the heart has a literal door on which Christ literally knocks. Inerrantists don't literally believe that Christ is a vine and that we are literal branches. However, if the Bible says Jonah was swallowed by a whale, he was swallowed by a whale. I hope you don't mind me opining on this.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Which unfortunately means we can't trust scripture and we only accept the parts we think are right.  I take the same approach to all Church teachings.

To know what's actually true becomes very difficult when we all have our own personal truth.

On that view there IS no "actual truth", that it is possible to know because it is impossible to differentiate it from our perceptions.

(Except by the spirit)

There are at least 6 layers of ambiguity, 3 for the sender and the same 3 for the receiver-

Sender:  1- perceiving "correctly" (color blindness, etc.) 2- interpreting correctly ( mirages, etc.) 3- translating into ambiguous symbols ( picking the right words) and then 3 for the Receiver: 1- perceiving the message correctly,(deafness) 2- interpreting it as intended by the sender 3- putting it into words correctly for the "audience.

It all is exactly like the game "telephone". Good luck!  And we expect "truth" to get through?

Better to just get your own revelations and go by your "own truth"

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Job loses all his ten children. Happy ever after for him is simple replacement with ten others. Not hard thinking to read into scripture. 

It is a bit odd since every other ‘good’ doubled after the trial. You can see in it a hint at eternal families since that would suggest that they are not gone gone and it was doubled. I am probably reading a subtext that is not there though. Could just be that the writer thought more than 10 children was no longer a blessing.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If I may, I would respectfully suggest that infallibility is not a "Protestant" term. Infallibility is perchance better characterized as an Evangelical term that the Bible is trustworthy and means what it says - it won't let you down. In that sense, it might be like what testifiers mean when they say the church is "true." It might also mean it is without error in a doctrinal sense.

The other and somewhat different term is the term innerancy which is used by non-LDS Christian Fundamentalists and many conservative Evangelicals. Many Protestants would not use either word at all to refer to the Bible. Inerrancy infers that the Bible is literally without error in all its text and words and should be taken as literally as possible. It gets down to the text word by word. Obviously the latter still allows for interpretation of scripture depending on the literary style. Inerrantists don't believe that the heart has a literal door on which Christ literally knocks. Inerrantists don't literally believe that Christ is a vine and that we are literal branches. However, if the Bible says Jonah was swallowed by a whale, he was swallowed by a whale. I hope you don't mind me opining on this.

She was not talking about words, but beliefs.

It seems that it is your BELIEF that the Bible is literally true, - it happened the way it says it happened

But there's a problem there, imo

How do you KNOW it happened the way the Bible says? 

"Oh!  Easy! I have a testimony it is the word of God"

Good. And That is the same way I know there is ongoing revelation and the BOM is also scripture.

Please don't ignore this question.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Just as God's glory comes from his exalted children.

Man is that he might have joy. It isn’t sheer numbers and properties and power that is why God is glorified, but what he has willingly done to bring his children into his eternal circle.  He was and is willing to make personal sacrifices so his children can receive what he has. He isn’t hoarding them or depriving other men of blessings by claiming us as his own….unlike how sealings have been taught of in the past as being very territorial from the man’s POV. He wasn’t sharing ‘his’ children with his wife’s second husband even if the children were biologically that man’s offspring. That man would be left without progeny unless he went on to add a wife who he could be sealed with and thus have children, biological or not in his name. 
 

Very different from the way we learn we become completely children of God, a group project where all benefit by becoming one with the Father as opposed to being treated as possessions where the man on top gets the benefit the most to the point that men were arguing over who would be the father in a sealing and who would be the son. 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Then there are the inconsistencies…

If a woman is patient and long suffering and sticks around till her husband dies, then she has no choice in whether or not she stays with him as no one can steal “his” wife or “his” children after he dies, but a woman less patient while living gets the choice by not only being given a relatively easy divorce, but it was even okay to leave one husband to marry another who would somehow up her spiritual status…and of course the marriage ups her new husband’s status by adding to his kingdoms, etc. 

Some of the reasoning and practices don’t sound all that thought through and more practical (allowing easy divorces for women would make them more inclined to take a risk at plural marriage as well as cut down on the complaining) than doctrinal, but then stuff was taught to justify them. 

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which unfortunately means we can't trust scripture and we only accept the parts we think are right.  I take the same approach to all Church teachings.

 

I don't think it means we can't trust scripture, but it does mean that we can't take the lazy way out and just believe that ever word in there is true or God's will.  We actually have to spend time with the spirit learning what is of worth to us and what will lead us to "look beyond the mark" and therefore needs to go. 

We all have our own biases and our own interpretation of things. That is a fact that is inescapable.  It's as true for you as it is for someone who despises the thought of polygamy.  What becomes very difficult is when we think that we are the one's doing what God wants while everyone who disagrees with us is following their own "personal truth."  That's one mindset that keeps us from becoming one (as God has commanded) and from mourning with those that mourn and helping the hands that hang down (as God has also commanded), because it's a self righteous, prideful mindset.  

And one that we all struggle with sometimes.

Quote

To know what's actually true becomes very difficult when we all have our own personal truth.

Speaking for myself, there are plenty of things that I don't personally agree with that I do think are true.  I would seriously be concerned if my view on something (whether I agreed with it or not) was the standard that I used to decide if it was of God.  Talk about setting my gods low (to quote a line in a book). 

You can't get any lower than having God always agreeing with a fallible, weak, unknowing human.  I mean, just imagine the damage that would be done if I, as a parent, never did anything my 6 year old disagreed with or didn't understand.

*shudder*

But you are right in that that is one of the hurdles the natural man in all of us struggles with the most.  Most of us think very highly of our intelligence and reasoning skills.  That's probably why pride is considered such a dangerous sin.  It makes it really hard to recognize when those abilities are actually leading us astray. 

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then there are the inconsistencies…

If a woman is patient and long suffering and sticks around till her husband dies, then she has no choice in whether or not she stays with him as no one can steal “his” wife or “his” children after he dies, but a woman less patient while living gets the choice by not only being given a relatively easy divorce, but it was even okay to leave one husband to marry another who would somehow up her spiritual status…and of course the marriage ups her new husband’s status by adding to his kingdoms, etc. 

Some of the reasoning and practices don’t sound all that thought through and more practical (allowing easy divorces for women would make them more inclined to take a risk at plural marriage as well as cut down on the complaining) than doctrinal, but then stuff was taught to justify them. 

A lot of it comes across very similarly to the justifications that were taught concerning the priesthood ban.  And we know how well those have held up doctrinally, despite being taught over the pulpit.

Edited August 1, 2021 by bluebell

[bluebell]

I feel like I should probably clarify that I am not one of those women who struggles with polygamy.  It's not something on my shelf and I believe it was of God (but probably not lived exactly as He would have preferred).

But I have so much compassion for those women who do struggle with it on a deep level.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, kimpearson said:

JLHPROF,  Just wanted to check some facts I remembered.  Section 132 is a very unusual revelation.  It wasn't included in the D&C until 1876.  It wasn't announced to the general church population until 1852.  Joseph Smith never had a chance to review and revise what his scribes wrote down like he did many of his other revelations.  The wording of section 132 is entirely unlike any other revelation in the D&C or any other book of scriptures.  It's a hard read and seems to jump around.  Several of the editors of the Joseph Smith papers have discussed the ways section 132 is unusual.  

I may have my history wrong but isn't there a story about after where Hyrum said they should have kept a copy of the revelation because Emma burned it.  Joseph responded that it was not a problem because he could give it again perfectly word for word.....or something like that.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

Well I will do my best.  Brigham Young preached an interesting concept where he said when men do polygamy properly the man should never divorce a wife.  It was however acceptable if a wife started the divorce.   I can only guess that God cannot control how many women are created in the premortal life and or the issue is not as many men will be in the Celestial Kingdom.  If and it is a big IF then polygamy is a heavenly solution (in the afterlife) for the ratio of men to women.   My experiences with God assures me that no women or men will be forced into this type of marriage in the after life.  I do not understand your point about  ""women serving on councils and a revamping of the temple ceremony to equalize women"" as polygamy in Heaven does not make women sub servants.  If the only way for the majority of women in the afterlife to have a husband and Spirit children in the next life is for one man to have many wives then let those women chose for themselves.  

Why do you think women will out number men in the celestial world?

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m talking about hymns with text and music by members of the Church. Do you know of any?

I guess I am misunderstanding your point. Sorry.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Celestial marriage is not a requirement to enter the celestial kingdom. It is required for exaltation.

Is it required for exaltation? I know BY taught that but does the church teach it now?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I may have my history wrong but isn't there a story about after where Hyrum said they should have kept a copy of the revelation because Emma burned it.  Joseph responded that it was not a problem because he could give it again perfectly word for word.....or something like that.

Was that the entire section though?

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Is it required for exaltation? I know BY taught that but does the church teach it now?

Celestial marriage is not automatically plural marriage. 

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I guess I am misunderstanding your point. Sorry.

No worries. We do have hymns in our LDS hymn book that we share with other denominations. Most of those are Protestant hymns from previous centuries or Christmas carols. Some folks want “Amazing Grace” to be added to our new hymn book, but it does have words that contradict LDS teachings about grace. So, I suggest we put our fellow Saints who write hymns at the front of the queue and replace many if not all those old Protestant hymns. I am not aware of any LDS-composed hymn that is used by other denominations. 

[Bernard Gui]

40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Is it required for exaltation? I know BY taught that but does the church teach it now?

Yes. For example,

Quote

For remember, brethren, that only those who enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in the temple for time and eternity, only those will have the exaltation in the celestial kingdom. That is what the Lord tells us. (Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Oct. 1973, 120

 

[JLHPROF]

59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I feel like I should probably clarify that I am not one of those women who struggles with polygamy.  It's not something on my shelf and I believe it was of God (but probably not lived exactly as He would have preferred).

But I have so much compassion for those women who do struggle with it on a deep level.

I understand that.  I'm just something of a literalist.  While recognizing some scripture is symbolic, if something is clearly spelled out I would generally accept it, even if it were uncomfortable.  I try very hard to make my view match God and his word, not the other way around.  Of course as you say, we all have biases.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I feel like I should probably clarify that I am not one of those women who struggles with polygamy.  It's not something on my shelf and I believe it was of God (but probably not lived exactly as He would have preferred).

But I have so much compassion for those women who do struggle with it on a deep level.

Is any marriage lived exactly as God would have preferred?

[mgy401]

51 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I may have my history wrong but isn't there a story about after where Hyrum said they should have kept a copy of the revelation because Emma burned it.  Joseph responded that it was not a problem because he could give it again perfectly word for word.....or something like that.

Close.  

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know, thinking about it, I can see perhaps how this idea got started- certainly it is part of a "rancher" mentality- the more living beings including horses, cattle, chickens etc you "own" the more wealth you have.

Without connecting this idea to "glory", I have recently had some odd insights into my own psyche and the strange feelings this way of seeing the world can cause.   I can easily see at least in some, how this idea of glory can get confused into the equation of patriarchy.   A good patriarch of course is a servant to his family, not some kind of "owner of cattle".  Those very words give me shivers

I am an only child.  Never had siblings nor do I fully understand what it is like to have some.  My wife comes from a family with 8 kids on the other hand so she is WELL acquainted with what it is like to be a sibling.  I am close to some of her brothers so I have an inkling but at times it is very clear that I am not "one of them".  They will always have a history together that I cannot share.

But now having grandchildren, it is a very strange feeling at a reunion say, to look around a room full of my dear wife, children and grandchildren, and the spouses of my sons, and hear someone speak of "Bukowski  family traditions" or folks saying things like- "You do that??  HA! You must be a Bukowski!" and family physical resemblances, and realize that my name, shared by only my parents, now gone, came down to all these people- simply because I exist and through social convention, "gave them my name".

One lonely kid's name turned into a household full of people.  Everybody in that room had my last name.

So I can see how one might want to decide that these people are somehow "my glory" without a reason to think so except that I had normal male fertility.

Blessings?  Beyond measure.   Gratitude to God MY Heavenly FATHER?  Also beyond measure.

But "glory"??   Beause I found my wonderful sweetheart and she decided I was "good enough" and my body worked satisfactorily in one area?  I feel more like a servant with a responsibiity to these wonderful people with whom I am privileged to associate here in this life.   Glory?

Of course not!

Bro Bski, man, I can identify with this! Pretty much my story, too. 

Sister Gui and I agree that whatever glory we may be allotted, we share it equally. 

[mgy401]

22 hours ago, kimpearson said:

mgy401,  Why are you twisting my question as if I were asking for some malicious explanation?  Be brave, show some thought and give me your faith affirming ideas about polygamy.  I wasn't asking for doctrine as we have no real doctrine or revelation explaining clearly the place of polygamy in the eternities.

*Shrug* You’re right that I probably assumed a bit much.  I assumed, for example, that you wanted me to follow your example of departing from and even contradicting the available historical evidence.  And you expressly said that you don’t want to hear an open acknowledgment that there are things we don’t understand; and you expressly said that you don’t want to be assured that satisfactory explanations will be given in the hereafter.

You are literally demanding I make stuff up to explain a difficult status quo.  You may recall that as a Church we have tried that on a variety of topics in the past—notably, when we offered various speculative and pseudo-theological explanations for the priesthood ban—and it didn’t end so well.  As unsatisfying as “I don’t know, and I’m not going to speculate” can be, I find it preferable to wading into Veruca Salt (“I want it NOW!!!”) theology.

The only point of yours that I see any point engaging with, beyond what I or others have said above, is that when you talk of the futility of polygamy in resolving celestial gender imbalance; to which I would respond as follows: Unless, amongst the presumably millions or billions of exalted males and females, there is an *exact* gender balance—not 1.1:1, not 1.01:1, not 1.0000000000000000000001:1, but exactly 1:1—then there’s going to have to be some form of celestial “bigamy” to resolve the issue of otherwise- unmatched singletons.  It isn’t polygamy apologists’ burden to show a statistically-significant imbalance.  It is polygamy critics’ burden to show that in the absence of polygamy there will be a perfect gender balance amongst the exalted; and that there won’t be an excess of one million, or one thousand, or a dozen, or even one member of one gender or the other.

Frankly, given lop-sided abortion figures of male versus female infants; it’s conceivable that polygamy is only necessary because modern second-wave feminists aided and abetted a 20th-century holocaust of abortions that sent flood of unborn female spirits directly to the Celestial Kingdom.  Wanna make sure you don’t have to “share” your husband?  Maybe you can start by fighting elective abortion.   

Edited August 2, 2021 by mgy401

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

Unless, amongst the presumably millions or billions of exalted males and females, there is an *exact* gender balance—not 1.1:1, not 1.01:1, not 1.0000000000000000000001:1, but exactly 1:1—then there’s going to have to be some form of celestial “bigamy” to resolve the issue of otherwise- unmatched singletons.  It isn’t polygamy apologists’ burden to show a statistically-significant imbalance.  It is polygamy critics’ burden to show that in the absence of polygamy there will be a perfect gender balance amongst the exalted; and that there won’t be an excess of one million, or one thousand, or a dozen, or even one member of one gender or the other.  

Fascinating thought.  Assuming exaltation requires marriage (and it does) there would statistically have to be at least some polygamy in the top degree.  The unlikeliness of an exact 1:1 ratio is astronomical.

Of course as @Calm would point out that's no guarantee the females would be the higher number in the actual ratio.  (Although I would expect it).

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I understand that.  I'm just something of a literalist.  While recognizing some scripture is symbolic, if something is clearly spelled out I would generally accept it, even if it were uncomfortable.  I try very hard to make my view match God and his word, not the other way around.  Of course as you say, we all have biases.

I’m a literalist because it seems like the least messy, easiest, most black and white way to understand the gospel.

And that makes me doubt the accuracy of literalism.