Distinct polygamy concerns

[Rain]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t know. I leaned towards it being because He knows we are mortal and flawed

 

I've always felt this way with a lot of things.

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

and there were still benefits to practicing it imperfectly. 

But I have lots of trouble with this as regards to polygamy.  There was so much pain and struggle then that continues to this day that I have a hard time seeing the benefits outweighing the problems. I know He knows and understands much more than I do, but...

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Is that is what is being advocated here?  I admit I am not paying super-duper attention, but the gist I have sensed is along these lines.  Members of the Church want to jettison Plural Marriage as a doctrine.  Altogether.  It was never a doctrine, not in the 19th century, not now in latent form.  Is this right?

It seems this is what @juliannis advocating when she sys things like this:

Quote

We would be in a huge mess if everything that came from God is eternal. I find this a very odd position to take. I'll stick with Pres. Hinckley who flat out said it isn't doctrinal, and other leaders who consistently refer to it as a practice that ended

 

Just saw that one.  I'm a bit surprised that she would characterize Pres. Hinckley's singular and off-the-cuff remark in this way.  Let's look at the context in which this comment was made (link is to a 2015 post by JLHPROF) :

Quote

http://mormonhomeevening.blogspot.com/2008/02/mormon-prophet-hinckley-claims-that_04.html

Quote

 

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morality, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is.

(skipped two questions)

Larry King: President Hinckley, when the press pays attention to it, it does affect you, certainly, in a public relations sense?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It does, because people mistakenly assume that this church has something to do with it. It has nothing whatever to do with it. It has had nothing to do with it for a very long time. It's outside the realm of our responsibility. These people are not members. Any man or woman who becomes involved in it is excommunicated from the church.

Larry King: Prosecutors in Utah are quoted as saying -- they told "The Salt Lake Tribune" -- that it's difficult to prosecute polygamists because of a lack of evidence; that ex-wives and daughters rarely complain about it. Do you see that as a problem?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, it's secretive. There's a certain element of secretiveness about it. I suppose they have some difficulty -- they say they do, in gathering evidence.

Larry King: Should the church be more forceful in speaking out? I mean, you're forceful here tonight, but maybe -- they've been saying that it's rather than just a state matter, encouraging the state to prosecute.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know. We'll consider it.

Larry King: I'm giving you an idea.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

Larry King: Would you look better if you were...

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil officers of the state.

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

Extra part:

"Gordon B. Hinckley: Let me say that I still believe that right is right, and wrong is wrong. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shall not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness. These aren't suggestions, these are commandments."

 

As you can see, taken completely out of context.  He was specifically referring to unauthorized fundamentalist polygamy as going against the doctrine of the Church.  Not to polygamy being undoctrinal.  Total false interpretation.

"{Pres. Hinckley} was specifically referring to unauthorized fundamentalist polygamy as going against the doctrine of the Church.  Not to polygamy being undoctrinal.  Total false interpretation."

Let's also take a look at what FAIR (!) has to say about this:

Quote

Question: Did Gordon B. Hinckley claim that polygamy was "not doctrinal" on Larry King Live?

Hinckley said that he condemned polygamy as a practice because he thought that it was not doctrinal

Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement on Larry King Live on September 8, 1998 with regard to the practice of polygamy:

I condemn it [polygamy], yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.

Question: How can President Hinckley claim that polygamy is "not doctrinal" if it was a required practice in the 19th-Century Church?

The Church no longer teaches polygamy as doctrine, despite the fact that it was doctrine in the 19th-Century Church

Despite the fact that rules regarding polygamy are outlined in D&C 132, the Church no longer teaches it as doctrine. It was taught as doctrine in the 1800's, it is not taught as doctrine today. There is no doctrine that allows the present practice of plural marriage in the Church. Its practice is "not doctrinal."

"{I}it was taught as doctrine in the 1800's, it is not taught as doctrine today.  There is no doctrine that allows the present practice of plural marriage in the Church. Its practice is 'not doctrinal.'"

Is Juliann saying that FAIR is contradicting Pres. Hinckley on a point of doctrine?

Is Juliann's interpretation of Pres. Hinckley's remark compatible with the various statements in the four essays about Plural Marriage published by the Church in which it (the Church) repeatedly and emphatically affirm the divine origins of 19th century polygamy?  

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am not sure what other leaders she is referring to. 

I am curious about that as well.  Certainly various leaders of the Church have spoken about the cessation of the practice of Plural Marriage.  There is no question about that.  But Juliann's comment seemed to be implying that there are "other leaders" - in addition to Pres. Hinckley in 2008 - who have publicly declared that the authorized-by-the-Church-in-the-19th-century practice of Plural Marriage "isn't doctrinal."

Maybe she is not saying that, and instead is simply observing that it isn't "doctrinal" to practice polygamy now, in 2022.  That would, I suppose, make sense and be factually correct.  But it is so axiomatic and obvious that saying it becomes a truism.

The context in this thread seems to center on the Church's asymmetrical approach to sealing policies.  The general rule (subject, it seems, to some not-included-in-the-Church-Handbook exceptions) is that men can be simultaneously sealed to more than one woman, but a woman cannot be simultaneously sealed to more than one man.  Is Juliann only speaking as to this asymmetry, and not to the status of polygamy as "doctrinal?"  As being revelatory?  As a commandment from God?  Based on her comments, I . . . am not really sure what she is doing.  She seems keen on publicly disparaging Plural Marriage as inherently bad, which would be an unusual thing to see from an observant Latter-day Saint:

• Here: "Polygamy is about inequality."  (The same, I suppose, could be said about priesthood ordination, and/or any and every other way in which the Church differentiates men from women.)
• Here: "The only thing we don't know is what to do with this piece of history and why it happened."  (It seems like we do know why polygamy "happened."  Per the Church, God commanded it.)
• Here: "Always treat polygamy as a discarded piece of our history that didn't work out well, not as something still in play."  (Here she seems to be implying that Plural Marriage is "{a} piece of our history" but not a part of our doctrine.  If so, I don't think that works.  We don't talk about the biblical practice of animal sacrifice as "a discarded piece of history."  We contextualize and seek to understand it.)
• Here: "And here is why we know polygamy isn't doctrinal. Look at what it turns men into.  Which reminds me, Pres. Hinckley's TV statement that polygamy isn't doctrinal would be a good addition."
• When I referenced Plural Marriage in relation to D&C 132, Jacob 2, and the Bible and said that "{w}e must 'square' our perceptions with these authorities," Juliann responded with "Unfortunately, it rarely happens," and that in Jacob 2 "{God} doesn't tell them to do polygamy."  (This, in my view, does not "'square' our perceptions" of 19th-century Plural Marriage at all, in fact it seems to wrest and even contradict Jacob 2.)
• Here: "Historical polygamy just is."  (This dodges the substantive question by a country mile.  Nobody here is denying the reality of 19th-century Plural Marriage.  The dispute seems to be about whether or not it was divinely mandated, and/or whether or not the Church teaches that it was divinely mandated, and/or what the Church should do with its current asymmetrical sealing policies in relation to the answers to these inquiries.)
• Here: "Again, women aren't suffering over polygamy because of struggles of their ancestors."  (This sort of seems odd when coming from an observant Latter-day Saint.  We don't seem frame other doctrines this way.  We don't talk about "suffering over" the Word of Wisdom, or the Law of Chastity.  We don't imply that such purported "suffering" is somehow determinative as to whether a particular teaching is scriptural/doctrinal/revelatory or not.)
• Here: "There is particularly never any attempt to describe what happened to the women and children who were discarded by husbands after the Manifesto[s] after this practice that some want to uphold as doctrine" (emphasis added).  (Um, would that "some" include . . . the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  With Exhibits 1-4 being the essays about Plural Marriage?)
• Here: "And this is what we see as polygamy today, a 19th c. practice steeped in social, cultural, political suppression of women. And that is what some choose to defend rather than whatever the heck it was supposed to be. That is what makes polygamy so noxious, not the idea of multiple spouses itself."  (Not sure what to make of this.  Is calling polygamy a "practice" intended as a denial of it as a doctrine?  Is Juliann intending to not deny the divine origins of 19th-century Plural Marriage, but rather to excoriate it's generally deleterious effects on the women involved in it?)
• Here: "And many men weren't following any rules, such as get permission from the existing wife or even an authority....especially when they were already polygamous."  (Same as above.  Is Juliann intending to not deny the divine origins of 19th-century Plural Marriage, but rather to excoriate it's generally deleterious effects on the women involved in it?  That some of its 19th-century practioner were not "following any rules" about it?)
• Here: "JS did follow what was laid out in 132, polygyny and polyandry. The problem is the harshness of 132...it would be important to inform the RS that JS did not put this in the D&C, BY did much later."  (Here Juliann seems to be disputing the provenance/accuracy of D&C 132 by asserting that Brigham Young modified the text.  This is an interesting argument to see from a faithful Latter-day Saint, as attacking the provenance of a canonized scripture is something usually advanced by ardent opponents or disaffected members of the Church (see, e.g., here) and opposed by faithful members (see Doctrine & Covenants Central's comments re: provenance here and Brian Hales' assessment, of both provenance in general and the Brigham-Young-Altered-It argument in particular, here.)
• Here: "As for polygamy being rotten, come on. I'm a product of it. I admire my ancestors and am in awe of their sacrifices in coming to Utah and doing what they believed in. I'm also very proud of my ggrandfather for not abandoning his wives after the Manifesto."  (So Juliann can characterize (in Plural Marriage as being "about inequality," and that it is "a discarded piece of history," that it "isn't doctrinal" (because "{l}ook at what it turns men into"), that other people (such as myself) are "uphold{ing} {Plural Marriage} as doctrine," that it is "noxious," and so on, but then she turns around and seemingly disputes another's characterization of Plural Marriage as "rotten."  That seems sort of odd.)

So . . . I'm confused.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

And President Hinckley's not doctrinal comment was in a public interview so why that suddenly carries great weight is beyond me. 

Any port in a storm, I guess.

As a Latter-day Saint, I am not comfortable with polygamy.  But my personal discomfort/dislike of a precept is, for me, not immediately dispositive as to whether the precept is correct.  I've commented on this previously here:

Quote

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.

 

Sunstoned previously commented that he thinks "the church should denounce it as a misguided mistake and as a practice that was not ordained from God."

I appreciate his candor and clarity.  My confusion here arises when I review Juliann's comments.  Is she proposing something substantively similar to what Sunstoned is saying here?  That the Church should "denounce" Plural Marriage as a "misguided mistake" and declare that it "was not ordained of God?"  That, as Juliann put it, "Pres. Hinckley's TV statement that polygamy isn't doctrinal would be a good addition"?

Yep, I'm confused.

I want the Church to do what is right.  I want it to pursue and proclaim truth.  I have no qualms with "course corrections."  I am grateful that the Church has disavowed past racist justifications for the Priesthood Ban, that it is working hard to mend fences with and build up relationships with the African-American community, that it has apologized for the Mountain Meadows Massacre ("We express profound regret..."), that it rectified what was apparently an unpoken policy regarding women offering prayers during General Conference, and has otherwise sought to address its oversights and errors, to change itself and improve and grow.

If Sunstoned is correct, that polygamy was "a misguided mistake" and "not ordained from God," I want to know that and see it addressed by the Church.  This would not be a totally unprecedented thing.  For example, the Church has long characterized the Song of Solomon, though part of the Bible, to be "uninspired."  But boy, there is a very big difference between that and repudiating polygamy.  I think Rongo's assessment of the fallout from Sunstoned's proposal would likely be proven correct:

Quote

Quote

Good points. JS did not follow what was laid out in sec 132.  To me it is clear what his motivation was. Polygamy was also a non starter for me. It was conceived in secrecy and practiced in secrecy.  I believe the fruits of modern LDS polygamy are rotten. both for the church and for all the break offs.  I feel the church should denounce it as a misguided mistake and as a practice that was not ordained from God.  Yes, it would ruffle some member's feathers,  I think that in the long run the church would be in a much better place.

I think this would more than just ruffle some members' feathers, and I think that the Church would never recover from it in the long run. It would call everything into question, and would be like pulling at a thread which, instead of coming out or breaking, keeps going and going until the whole fabric is unraveled. At a minimum, D&C 132 would have to be eliminated or heavily changed, and millions of people would have their "old" copies to compare with the edited versions. 

Those are just the practical reasons not to do this. 

Putting aside "practical reasons not to do this," and more to the point, is that I don't believe it was "a misguided mistake" and "not ordained from God."  To the contrary, I believe that the principle, though clearly poorly observed in many instances by our 19th-century ancestors, was nevertheless a divinely-mandated thing.  A revealed doctrine.  I understand that it is a stumblingblock for some, perhaps in ways similar to how the Savior's "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 was a stumblingblock to some of His disciiples.  And yet nobody seems to want to repudiate that doctrine, or excise it from the New Testamant, calling it "a misguided mistake" and "not ordained from God."

The Bible appears to reference both authorized and unauthorized polygamy.  Jacob 2 does as well.  D&C 132 is front and center.  I think these need to be addressed (along with the Church's various essays on the topic).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 13, 2022 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

But I have lots of trouble with this as regards to polygamy.  There was so much pain and struggle then that continues to this day that I have a hard time seeing the benefits outweighing the problems. I know He knows and understands much more than I do, but...

I can understand why this would be the feeling of many.
But I don't see that the pain and struggles of polygamy are any worse than many of the trials the Lord calls his children to walk through.
The list of pain and suffering endured by those following God is endless.  The idea that something that causes pain can't come from God is simply wrong.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you asking why God allows us to be human?

No.

 

Look apparently plural marriage was allegedly important enough for God to send an angel with a flaming sword to lope off JS's head if he would not do it.  So suddenly he does it and now the humans screwed it all up. If it was that important and humans screwed it up why didn't GOd fix it?  Really saying it was from God but the humans messed it up is an excuse not to deal with all the ugliness that shows the fact that it was totally not really from God at all.  If it was God could have told his prophet to fix it and cut out the shenanigan's.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t know. I leaned towards it being because He knows we are mortal and flawed and there were still benefits to practicing it imperfectly. 

See my comments to @pogi

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No.

Look apparently plural marriage was allegedly important enough for God to send an angel with a flaming sword to lope off JS's head if he would not do it.  So suddenly he does it and now the humans screwed it all up.

I think this is facile and overbroad.  Polygamy was, broadly speaking, very difficult for those involved.  But to say that the 19th-century Saints categorically "screwed it all up" is neither accurate nor fair.  It would likewise be inaccurate and unfair to say that today's Latter-day Saints, who cherish monogamy, have "screwed it all up" by only having a marginally lower divorce rate than the national average.

The Latter-day Saints also cherish children, advocate marital fidelity, and teach the importance of honesty, and yet some Latter-day Saints are guilty of abusing their children, of cheating on their spouses, and of being dishonest in their dealings with others.  The failures of the Latter-day Saints are not, in my view, evidence to negate the divinity of these underlying doctrines.

The same goes for polygamy.

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If it was that important and humans screwed it up why didn't God fix it? 

If monogamy is important and humans are screwing it up, why isn't God fixing this?

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Really saying it was from God but the humans messed it up is an excuse not to deal with all the ugliness

Nah.  I think we can both affirm the former ("humans messed it up") and still "deal with all the ugliness."

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

that shows the fact that it was totally not really from God at all. 

Well, reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If it was God could have told his prophet to fix it and cut out the shenanigan's.

By that reckoning, there should be zero instances in the Church of spousal abuse, child abuse, marital infidelity, fornication, substance abuse, dishonesty, laziness, and so on.  These things continue in the Church, but is that evidence of what "God could" be doing about them?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The list of pain and suffering endured by those following God is endless.  The idea that something that causes pain can't come from God is simply wrong.

Is it wrong?  Why is that?  Because you say so?  The problem of evil and suffering and whether the ideas put forth in theodicy arguments are not all that cut and dry.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The list of pain and suffering endured by those following God is endless.  The idea that something that causes pain can't come from God is simply wrong.

Is it wrong?  Why is that?  Because you say so? 

No.  It is wrong because it is facile.  

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The problem of evil and suffering and whether the ideas put forth in theodicy arguments are not all that cut and dry.

We seem to be saying the same thing.  Things "are not all that cut and dry."  Creating a direct causal link between "something that causes pain" and it not coming "from God" is facile.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I think this is facile and overbroad. 

Well I am not the one that used this to convince women to marry me.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

 

Polygamy was, broadly speaking, very difficult for those involved.

Likely.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

 

  But to say that the 19th-century Saints categorically "screwed it all up" is neither accurate nor fair. 

It is a number of your fellow believers who are saying it was of God but those practicing it messed it up.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

 

It would likewise be inaccurate and unfair to say that today's Latter-day Saints, who cherish monogamy, have "screwed it all up" by only having a marginally lower divorce rate than the national average.

A poor comparison IMO. We are talking about something that allegedly God revealed for a very important reason. And then suddenly how it was practiced was largely full of mistakes?  Why not use a communication to his prophet to fix it?  Isn't this why God has a prophet?

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The Latter-day Saints also cherish children, advocate marital fidelity, and teach the importance of honesty, and yet some Latter-day Saints are guilty of abusing their children, of cheating on their spouses, and of being dishonest in their dealings with others.  The failures of the Latter-day Saints are not, in my view, evidence to negate the divinity of these underlying doctrines.

And LDS leaders talk about all sorts of things to improve the practice of these things.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The same goes for polygamy.

No not really. This was a specific command and your fellow believers claim it was messed up by those who practiced it.  But really I think this is an excuse for what they don't like about it. My guess is those that practiced it would not agree they practiced it incorrectly.  Brigham  would likely say his practice was exactly how God wanted it.

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

 

 

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We seem to be saying the same thing.  Things "are not all that cut and dry."  Creating a direct causal link between "something that causes pain" and it not coming "from God" is facile.

So does God directly do things to inflict pain on his creation?

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Look apparently plural marriage was allegedly important enough for God to send an angel with a flaming sword to lope off JS's head if he would not do it.  So suddenly he does it and now the humans screwed it all up.

Well I am not the one that used this to convince women to marry me.

I was referencing the "humans screwed it all up" part.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Polygamy was, broadly speaking, very difficult for those involved.   But to say that the 19th-century Saints categorically "screwed it all up" is neither accurate nor fair. 

Likely.  It is a number of your fellow believers who are saying it was of God but those practicing it messed it up.

I said: "But to say that the 19th-century Saints categorically "screwed it all up" is neither accurate nor fair."

You seemed to be agreeing with this categorical characterization.  And I am disagreeing with it.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

It would likewise be inaccurate and unfair to say that today's Latter-day Saints, who cherish monogamy, have "screwed it all up" by only having a marginally lower divorce rate than the national average.

A poor comparison IMO. We are talking about something that allegedly God revealed for a very important reason.

Monogamous marriage is not "something that allegedly God revealed for a very important reason?"  He revealed it before Adam and Eve even left the Garden.

So the comparison seems . . . apt. 

It would be facile to argue that some human beings screwing of monogamous marriages demonstrates that it is not from God.

It is likewise facile to argue that some human beings screwing of polygamous marriages demonstrates that it is not from God.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

And then suddenly how it was practiced was largely full of mistakes? 

I'm not sure what you mean by "suddenly."

The Law of Consecration was "revealed," yet poorly observed by many in the Church.

The Word of Wisdom was "revealed," yet poorly observed by many in the Church.

The Law of Chastity was "revealed," and yet is poorly observed by many in the Church.

The Children of Israel witnessed many miraculous things, and then many of them turned around and committed gross transgressions.  Laman and Lemuel were visited by an angel, and then they turned around and continued grousing.

There is no "suddenly" in these things.  Human beings are flawed.  The Restored Gospel was given to help us overcome our flaws, which seldom happens "suddenly."  Not for us as individuals, not for us as a community.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Why not use a communication to his prophet to fix it?  Isn't this why God has a prophet?

I can't speak to that, particularly as to its presupposition (that God did not "use a communication to his prophet to fix it").

I can't speak, either authoritatively or as regarding any particulars, as to why God let the Children of Israel languish in slavery in Egypt for generations.

I can't speak, either authoritatively or as regarding any particulars, as to why God let the Saints suffer so many privations in the early decades of the Church.

"Agency" is obviously a big "macro" explanation, but as to the particulars of specific instances, we seldom have sufficient information to allow us to speak intelligently about why God does, or does not, do something.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The Latter-day Saints also cherish children, advocate marital fidelity, and teach the importance of honesty, and yet some Latter-day Saints are guilty of abusing their children, of cheating on their spouses, and of being dishonest in their dealings with others.  The failures of the Latter-day Saints are not, in my view, evidence to negate the divinity of these underlying doctrines.

And LDS leaders talk about all sorts of things to improve the practice of these things.

Okay.  Are you suggesting that 19th-century leaders did not do this?

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The Latter-day Saints also cherish children, advocate marital fidelity, and teach the importance of honesty, and yet some Latter-day Saints are guilty of abusing their children, of cheating on their spouses, and of being dishonest in their dealings with others.  The failures of the Latter-day Saints are not, in my view, evidence to negate the divinity of these underlying doctrines.

The same goes for polygamy.

No not really.

Well, I suppose we will have to disagree about that.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

This was a specific command and your fellow believers claim it was messed up by those who practiced it. 

Again, this is overbroad and facile.  The Saints have likewise received "specific command{s}" about marital fidelity, care of children, honesty, condemnation of abuse, etc.  And yet we still have Latter-day Saints who have "messed up" on these matters.

My failure to keep a commandment is not really evidence for or against the commandment having come from God.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

But really I think this is an excuse for what they don't like about it.

I agree.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

My guess is those that practiced it would not agree they practiced it incorrectly. 

It is human nature to minimize and rationalize and equivocate about our weaknesses and shortcomings.

We can certainly look at individual circumstances and allegations about how this or that individual misbehaved relative to polygamy and, assuming such things to be accurate, reasonably conclude that some folks did a very poor job of maintaining the high behavioral standards associated with marriage.  But I can't go along with the across-the-board, categorical denunciations of "polygamy" as an institution.  That is too facile and overbroad.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Brigham would likely say his practice was exactly how God wanted it.

It is the easiest thing in the world to shove thoughts and words into the minds of and down the throats of people who are A) long dead, and B) disliked by you.

But such hostile speculations are not evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

We seem to be saying the same thing.  Things "are not all that cut and dry."  Creating a direct causal link between "something that causes pain" and it not coming "from God" is facile.

So does God directly do things to inflict pain on his creation?

Sometimes. 

Mosiah 3:19: "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father."  (Mosiah 3:19) (emphasis added).

Revelation 3:19: "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."

D&C 1:27: "And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent."

D&C 95:1-2: "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I love I also chasten that their sins may be forgiven, for with the chastisement I prepare a way for their deliverance in all things out of temptation, and I have loved you—Wherefore, ye must needs be chastened and stand rebuked before my face."

D&C 105:6: "And my people must needs be chastened until they learn obedience, if it must needs be, by the things which they suffer."

Proverbs 3:11-12: "My son, despise not the chastening of the Lord; neither be weary of his correction: For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth."

Helaman 12:3: " And thus we see that except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with death and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not remember him."

D&C 101:

Quote

2 I, the Lord, have suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions;
3 Yet I will own them, and they shall be mine in that day when I shall come to make up my jewels.
4 Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son.
5 For all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified.

Mosiah 23:

Quote

21 Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith.
22 Nevertheless—whosoever putteth his trust in him the same shall be lifted up at the last day. Yea, and thus it was with this people.

Hebrews 12:

Quote

5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

Mostly, though, I think we humans are the source of the problems and miseries we inflict on ourselves and on others.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

See my comments to @pogi

Maybe because God was more concerned with the humans trying and doing their best and learning from the strengths and weaknesses of each other, than on practicing polygamy perfectly?

But that is how I see God.  Someone who is more concerned with the journey than the destination.  I see Him as being concerned with what the saints could learn by practicing polygamy (even imperfectly) and how it could strengthen their relationship with Him, than He is with polygamy itself.

You and I have completely different views of God and who He is and what His motivations are, and that's why we see the same information and come to completely different conclusions about what it means.  It's also why statements of "Really saying it was from God but the humans messed it up is an excuse not to deal with all the ugliness that shows the fact that it was totally not really from God at all" is seem like the perfect comeback to you but seem completely dismissable and irrelevant to me.

Your conclusions about God require me to have a perspective of Him that I just don't have or agree with.  That's why I don't personally find them valid.  Your mileage obviously varies.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I can understand why this would be the feeling of many.
But I don't see that the pain and struggles of polygamy are any worse than many of the trials the Lord calls his children to walk through.
The list of pain and suffering endured by those following God is endless.  The idea that something that causes pain can't come from God is simply wrong.

This is where I am right now with it too.  From all of the scriptures and personal stories that I have read and studied--and from my own personal experiences--I don't think God sets up our lives to keep us from experiencing pain and struggle.  I think that sometimes pain and struggle is what He is aiming for.  But only because there is growth and strength and faith that can come from it that can't come in any other way.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

No.

 

Look apparently plural marriage was allegedly important enough for God to send an angel with a flaming sword to lope off JS's head if he would not do it.  So suddenly he does it and now the humans screwed it all up. If it was that important and humans screwed it up why didn't GOd fix it?  Really saying it was from God but the humans messed it up is an excuse not to deal with all the ugliness that shows the fact that it was totally not really from God at all.  If it was God could have told his prophet to fix it and cut out the shenanigan's.

First, I am not convinced that there was an angel with a sword (as I explained earlier in the thread).  Second, things that are important to God get screwed up by humans all the time.  Marriage in general, raising children, the church falling into apostasy, prophets going astray (David, for example), etc. etc. etc.  Christ wasn't too happy about the Jews messing up his religion (which was important to him) - but he let them be human.  I don't know why this should be any different.  You answer "no", but it truly does seem that you have a problem with the idea of God letting humans be human.  

Edited July 13, 2022 by pogi

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I was referencing the "humans screwed it all up" part.

I said: "But to say that the 19th-century Saints categorically "screwed it all up" is neither accurate nor fair."

You seemed to be agreeing with this categorical characterization.  And I am disagreeing with it.

Monogamous marriage is not "something that allegedly God revealed for a very important reason?"  He revealed it before Adam and Eve even left the Garden.

So the comparison seems . . . apt. 

It would be facile to argue that some human beings screwing of monogamous marriages demonstrates that it is not from God.

It is likewise facile to argue that some human beings screwing of polygamous marriages demonstrates that it is not from God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "suddenly."

The Law of Consecration was "revealed," yet poorly observed by many in the Church.

The Word of Wisdom was "revealed," yet poorly observed by many in the Church.

The Law of Chastity was "revealed," and yet is poorly observed by many in the Church.

The Children of Israel witnessed many miraculous things, and then many of them turned around and committed gross transgressions.  Laman and Lemuel were visited by an angel, and then they turned around and continued grousing.

There is no "suddenly" in these things.  Human beings are flawed.  The Restored Gospel was given to help us overcome our flaws, which seldom happens "suddenly."  Not for us as individuals, not for us as a community.

I can't speak to that, particularly as to its presupposition (that God did not "use a communication to his prophet to fix it").

I can't speak, either authoritatively or as regarding any particulars, as to why God let the Children of Israel languish in slavery in Egypt for generations.

I can't speak, either authoritatively or as regarding any particulars, as to why God let the Saints suffer so many privations in the early decades of the Church.

"Agency" is obviously a big "macro" explanation, but as to the particulars of specific instances, we seldom have sufficient information to allow us to speak intelligently about why God does, or does not, do something.

Okay.  Are you suggesting that 19th-century leaders did not do this?

Well, I suppose we will have to disagree about that.

Again, this is overbroad and facile.  The Saints have likewise received "specific command{s}" about marital fidelity, care of children, honesty, condemnation of abuse, etc.  And yet we still have Latter-day Saints who have "messed up" on these matters.

My failure to keep a commandment is not really evidence for or against the commandment having come from God.

I agree.

It is human nature to minimize and rationalize and equivocate about our weaknesses and shortcomings.

We can certainly look at individual circumstances and allegations about how this or that individual misbehaved relative to polygamy and, assuming such things to be accurate, reasonably conclude that some folks did a very poor job of maintaining the high behavioral standards associated with marriage.  But I can't go along with the across-the-board, categorical denunciations of "polygamy" as an institution.  That is too facile and overbroad.

It is the easiest thing in the world to shove thoughts and words into the minds of and down the throats of people who are A) long dead, and B) disliked by you.

But such hostile speculations are not evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's make it simple.  My point is not that the 19th century saints messed plural marriage up.  That is what a number of believers said. I think they say it in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance the awfulness that came from Mormon Polygamy creates.  I don't think they messed anything up.  But I don't think God commanded it either.  At the same time I believe those that practiced it and believed it mostly were of the opinion they were practicing it correctly.  But it seems in fashion to toss prior LDS leaders and what they did and taught under the bus when we become uncomfortably with it.  Same thing has happened in regards to the priesthood ban.

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You answer "no", but it truly does seem that you have a problem with the idea of God letting humans be human.  

I have no idea how you draw that conclusion.  I am fine with humans being humans. Whether there is even a God involved I have no idea. People who claim God divinely directs his church through a living prophet that simply want to blame the people on all the things that are clearly bad or seem to go wrong I find puzzling. Sure even with God there humans will make mistakes.  But man the Church sure has a lot of mistakes that have perpetuated in spite of allegedly having a prophet that God directs.

[Vanguard]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have no idea how you draw that conclusion.  I am fine with humans being humans. Whether there is even a God involved I have no idea. People who claim God divinely directs his church through a living prophet that simply want to blame the people on all the things that are clearly bad or seem to go wrong I find puzzling. Sure even with God there humans will make mistakes.  But man the Church sure has a lot of mistakes that have perpetuated in spite of allegedly having a prophet that God directs.

I emphatically disagree on this last point. I look at it from the other direction. It is unbelievable what the Church has accomplished in my life time and before. I am taken back continually when I think on my own improvement and how the message of the restored gospel has and is transforming me into something I would have only imagined. I can let the leadership off on many issues. There is simply too much 'good fruit' to discount the message. I am sorry it did not make the difference for you. : (

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I emphatically disagree on this last point.

Feel free.  We disagree obviously.

7 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

 

I look at it from the other direction. It is unbelievable what the Church has accomplished in my life time and before. I am taken back continually when I think on my own improvement and how the message of the restored gospel has and is transforming me into something I would have only imagined. I can let the leadership off on many issues. There is simply too much 'good fruit' to discount the message. I am sorry it did not make the difference for you. : (

Did it not make a difference for me??  A lot of what and how I am today is because of the Church. I was born into an LDS family and am fifth generation LDS.  I spent most of my life as an active Latter day saint.  It was only in my early to mid 50s that I concluded the truth claims were false and now have chosen not to participate. So your comment is rather myopic. Much of the good in my life and even success comes from much of what I gained as an active Latter day Saint.  But that does not make it true nor gloss over the problems.  Good fruit can come from all sorts of things.  That does not make such things God approved or ordained or instigated.

[Vanguard]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Feel free.  We disagree obviously.

Did it not make a difference for me??  A lot of what and how I am today is because of the Church. I was born into an LDS family and am fifth generation LDS.  I spent most of my life as an active Latter day saint.  It was only in my early to mid 50s that I concluded the truth claims were false and now have chosen not to participate. So your comment is rather myopic. Much of the good in my life and even success comes from much of what I gained as an active Latter day Saint.  But that does not make it true nor gloss over the problems.  Good fruit can come from all sorts of things.  That does not make such things God approved or ordained or instigated.

That's all fair enough. I suspect you and I are similarly-aged (I'm 56). Lifer in the church. I can't stand simplemindedness or denial. But for some reason I can't deny what I have felt and experienced (I suspect you had those moments too). I can't ignore what the Gospel has done for my daughter as she embarks on her mission. I have watched her grow spiritually and intellectually in the faith (though there is much more to go!). I guess it's a frame of mind. You strike me as a good soul. Though this message may be better placed in a PM, I believe the church has lost a strong force for good in your departure. And for that I'm left crestfallen. I have too many good friends (and virtual acquaintances) who have left. Reading about your story, reminds me of how I am affected by these faith departures. Peace and strength to you, my friend. I still consider all of these departed friends brothers as I do you. : )  

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Let's make it simple. 

Oi.  I get a little leery of proposals to simplify matters that are, by their nature, not simple.  Sometimes detail and nuance matter.  Sometimes inherent complexities defy "mak{ing} it simple."  Sometimes gaps in our knowledge preclude simplification.

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My point is not that the 19th century saints messed plural marriage up. 

Okay.  That seems to be the central conceit of the "let's repudiate polygamy, call it a huge mistake, and deny that it ever came from God"-style approach suggested by Sunstoned (and, perhaps, others).  This is why I have been commenting on this topic.

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That is what a number of believers said. I think they say it in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance the awfulness that came from Mormon Polygamy creates. 

I agree (that this is why they are taking this approach).  However, I reject the notion that polygamy is inherently "awful" or that polygamy necessarily creates "cognitive dissonance."  My parents previously served a mission in Zimbabwe, where polygamy is technically illegal, but where large numbers of folks practice it anyway.  My dad once mentioned that, in his experience, new converts to the Church, when they find out about the Church's polygamous past, have . . . no real problem with it.  At all.  There isn't a substantial "cognitive dissonance" about polygamy because people in Zimbabwe are cultrally acclimatized to it.  The "ick" factor is not there for them.  It's not inherently "awful" for them.

While I share the unease about polygamy that many here have expressed, I don't deem that unease to be dispositive as to the morality and origins of polygamy in the Church.  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).  In other words, my sense of unease is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't think they messed anything up. 

Could you elaborate?  You don't think there were any substantive and/or pervasive flaws in how Latter-day Saints in the 1800s practiced polygamy?

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But I don't think God commanded it either. 

I'm okay with that.  That is a question of faith, and a derivative one at that.

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

At the same time I believe those that practiced it and believed it mostly were of the opinion they were practicing it correctly. 

Lots of generalizing here.  Again, it is human nature to minimize and rationalize and equivocate about our weaknesses and shortcomings.  For example, a man who abandons his wife and children may be able to justify that decision in his own mind.  He may tell himself that he acted "correctly."  Whether or not that is a reasonable assessment, however...

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But it seems in fashion to toss prior LDS leaders and what they did and taught under the bus when we become uncomfortably with it.

I don't think I'm doing any such tossing.  I assume you are referring to others?

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Same thing has happened in regards to the priesthood ban.

As I noted previously, I draw a distinction between the two (polygamy and the ban), which distinction you agreed was "reasonable" (though I should note here that just because you think that does not mean, IMO, that you are obligated to go along with it).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I can understand why this would be the feeling of many.

Thank you.

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But I don't see that the pain and struggles of polygamy are any worse than many of the trials the Lord calls his children to walk through.
The list of pain and suffering endured by those following God is endless.  The idea that something that causes pain can't come from God is simply wrong.

 

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

This is where I am right now with it too.  From all of the scriptures and personal stories that I have read and studied--and from my own personal experiences--I don't think God sets up our lives to keep us from experiencing pain and struggle.  I think that sometimes pain and struggle is what He is aiming for.  But only because there is growth and strength and faith that can come from it that can't come in any other way.

Key part of what I said, "I have a hard time seeing the benefits outweighing the problems."

Yes, the list of things is long that causes pain.  But how many of those things outweigh the benefits?   

At this point I can see no benefits to polygamy, so the pain caused by it has hit the ground with a bang on the pain side of the scale while the benefits went flying through the air.   

[carbon dioxide]

19 hours ago, Rain said:

At this point I can see no benefits to polygamy, so the pain caused by it has hit the ground with a bang on the pain side of the scale while the benefits went flying through the air.   

I can understand these views.  But God sees things that we don't.  Where would the House of Israel be without polygamy?  We are all part of a great polygamist family are we not?   Anything can cause pain.  I don't see how pain or lack of pain is a measurement of the value of something. 

There may not be a lot of benefits for you and I to practice polygamy.  Perhaps that is the reason the Lord does not ask us to.  However there may be situations where polygamy may be required for something to happen.   In those situations, we should keep an open mind.

Edited July 14, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I can understand these views.  But God sees things that we don't.  Where would the House of Israel be without polygamy? 

Not a single one of us knows. Maybe better off.

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

We are all part of a great polygamist family are we not?   Anything can cause pain.  I don't see how pain or lack of pain is a measurement of the value of something.

I don't either.  It is the benefits that show the value.  Pain without benefits is just torture.

[california boy]

Polygamy would make a whole lot more sense to me if a woman could have also had numerous husbands.  Why is that never brought up?  Is it only men that can handle more than one spouse?  Are there more righteous women in the next life so men will be harder to find? Because the flip side of that coin is that many men will be without any spouse in the next life. (unless of course, they can marry each other).   Are women incapable of providing for a family?  

You have to be extremely sexist to accept polygamy where only the men can have more than one spouse. I guess the Church has no problem with that.