My Perspective on Polygamy

MH: The polygamy issue has always been something I was aware of and not interested in, figuring there were likely reasons for it at times when saints crossed plains, lost loved ones, needed to take care of families and survive.

However, the more it comes up, the more I see there is more to it and I am not trying to specifically seek out to study, but it just keeps coming up in my studies, and I don’t want to specifically avoid it either.

I am interested to hear your posts and may look into some of those books you mentioned.

I start with my ideas that the celestial law is temple marriage. Polygamy was perhaps a doctrine allowed but not critical to the doctrines of salvation. Some people got way too attached to it, and as happened many times in early church history with new doctrines, people didn’t understand it and didn’t practice it right. It was something our culture cannot accept as anything but perverted, and the church leaders saw the church couldn’t win that battle and the US government would crush them if they continued to practice it. Is that wrong for the church to bend on rules? My view: not great, but on non-essential issues, it may be acceptable and this was a non-essential doctrine, unlike baptism and temple ordinances (even though quotes from early church leaders may have suggested otherwise, I reserve judgement on those statements for reasons of historical accuracy or those men may just have not understood it.)

I view it as something like the law of consecration which we aren’t ready to live yet. Perhaps it could be done correctly if people were righteous enough to get beyond sex and jealousy and earthly emotions, however, we just aren’t ready for it (in the church or in society) so we don’t need to spend too much time understanding it until we are told by the Lord we need to.

James,

It isn’t really possible for anyone to help anyone else feel comfortable about this stuff. This isn’t about comfort but conviction. Who can be comfortable with something that goes against one’s cultural upbringing and biases? That’s like the Lord commanding all of us (excluding Nick and whoever else) who loathe homosexuality to be homosexuals, and feel comfortable about it. What exclusively heterosexual male person, would be comfortable with being told by God that along with their wife, they now had to have a “husband” in order to go to the highest glory? So it is perfectly understandable that many people should loathe polygamy as much as I would loathe homosexuality (no offense intended Nick).

The real key is to get the Spirit and get a firm testimony of these principles of plural marriage in D&C 132 regardless of the fact that they are not practiced, and then hope that they are never brought back (that is, for those of you that hope such a thing).

Polygamy has not been done away with. It is still in D&C section 132 and performed in LDS Temples in preparation of the next life. Although I don’t agree with B. in Mont.’s final conclusions, I do agree “I honestly cannot understand how someone can study Mormon history, objectivly read Section 132, and still come up with the idea that celestial plural marriage is not required by God for our exaltation.” Those who reject it are doing so for cultural rather than religious reasons.

Mormon Heretic, I thing you may be actually living up to your name sake finally!

I’ve spent way too many hours on this blog discussing the ills of polygamy and I’m just not sure I’m ready to go at it again. I believe your OP is very brave, very brave indeed. I have read “In Sacred Loneliness “as well as “Rough Stone Rolling” and therefore I applaud your willingness to seek to understand before seeking to be understood. (Now that’s profound…thanks Steven Covey) Even though we seldom agree, at least you do your homework before coming to class…

The interview John Delhin had with Todd Compton didn’t come off the way I would have expected. Todd seemed rather detached from his work and lacked a certain amount of passion for the subject. Maybe he just caught him on a bad day… Did you get the same opinion of that interview or was I looking to deep?

For those that believe polygamy is something that can be practiced by mere mortals with God’s blessing, I wonder why they stay LDS. The fundamentalist believe everything they do with the inclusion of polygamy. Why not go with your beliefs and join those that think the same way? I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just don’t get it.

Until polygamy was done away with, the church was thought of as a very obscure cult by the outside world. In the end, it would have spelled the end of the church as Wilford Woodruff eluded to in the Manifesto or at least drove it so far underground as to forever cripple its ability to be anything more then what the Fundamentalist are today. Therefore we’re in agreement; (sorry if that scares you) the practice couldn’t have been inspired because God wouldn’t have wanted to have the saints adopt something that would lead to the end of His restored church in such a short time. Toward the end of Joseph Smith’s life, I think he had lots of second thoughts about it has well and probably wished he hadn’t opened that Pandora’s Box.

For those that argue about everything being restored for the last dispensation, I can show a lot of other Old Testament traditions that they would need to have restored as well. Some of them are not very pleasant and naturally would result in said individuals spending a good part of their lives in prison. But then again, to be punished for adhering to your beliefs has a somewhat noble quality about it… Don’t you think?

As I’ve said before, the fruits of monogamy are every bit as ugly as the fruits of polygamy.

I think, on those lights, that polygamy is every bit as inspired a doctrine as monogamy is.

“Van Wagoner and Quinn both talk about a conversation between Joseph and Emma where Joseph offered Emma an additional husband (I believe it was William Marks, but I’ll have to double-check), in exchange for Emma letting him enjoy his wives in peace.”

That actually appears to be referenced in Doctrine and Covenants 132:51:

51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

Section 132 actually does seem to imply that polyandry is acceptable.

There’s a passage in there that says if a woman is already married and she is with another man without being sealed by God, it is adultery. Which, of course, implies that if a sealing had taken place, it would be OK.

It seems that whenever somebody is trying to justify the imperfections of Joseph Smith they begin listing examples from the Old Testament that aren’t quite comparable to Joseph Smith’s polygamy conduct. Yes, Moses killed a man. That man was an egyptian (soldier?) who was in the process of “smiting” his fellow Hebrew. While this may bare a tinge of speculation, I don’t think it is too much to surmise that perhaps while Moses actions where illegal from the Egyptian perspective, he still may have been a justified in the defense of his friend. Abraham lied about his relationship with his wife in order to save his life, still a perplexing story, but only strict deontologists would take this story as an example of sinister conduct by focusing on the lie itself rather than the intent.

Joseph, on the other hand, claimed that God commanded him to marry multiple women. He used his position of influence to orchestrate an elaborately layered social construct in Nauvoo that was built on layers of secrecy that led to an “in group” and an “out group”, with the Temple being central to all of this. He approached woman with the claim that God had unequivocally decreed that they should be married, and by so doing they could ensure Salvation for entire families. If I run a basic logical analysis here, I see three reasonable possiblities:

1) God did in fact command polygamy and Joseph was just doing God’s will, in which he either did a good job by executing God’s command to the letter, or he did a poor job and polluted the practice ignorantly with human frailty. In either case we would be wise to “get on the bus if this is fact”.

2) God did not command polygamy, but Joseph thought that he did or would based on a good faith Christian effort to implement what he interpreted as biblical teachings. Even if we give Joseph the benefit of the doubt by assuming he meant no ill will by espousing this theory, we still undermine Joseph’s prophetic calling by suggesting that somehow he was disconnected on this issue which he appears to have been highly confident about.

3) God did not command polygamy, and Joseph introduced this practice for selfish and sinister purposes. This case obviously needs no explanation.

If I were inclined to believe I would most certainly have to settle on some variation of scenario 1).

“Doug, I really think we agree more than you think. IMO, you seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. I think one can still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and reject certain things. I’d like to personally invite you to my brand of moderate Mormonism.”

MH, thanks for a sincere invitation and one that has been extended by several of my RM children and more importantly, my wife. Something I’ve always struggled with is my tendency toward black and white thinking. In my career as a manager, it has proved to be my biggest strength and my greatest weakness. FWIW, I am trying to find this middle ground you allude to. As you also must realize by now, being a heretic will not make you the most popular guy in the ward or with leaders.

Cowboy,

Man, are you politically correct or what?

I actually believe Fanny Alger turned JS head and he wasn’t sure how to deal with those feelings. Given the forbidden nature of their relationship and the fact that as soon as Emma discovered their “dirty filthy affair”, she was summarily thrown out of the house. I think it’s fair to conclude that this really wasn’t a marriage as Joseph even helped with the eviction rather than standing up to Emma and boldly stating that he was just following god’s command. Had he actually seen an angel, I doubt events would have unfolded the way they did. It is important to point out that this episode occurred somewhere between 1833 and 1835. The sealing keys weren’t restored until 1836, so comments about his marriages being dynastic seem silly, at least at this early stage.

Pres Hinckley’s response:

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.
-Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign Magazine, Nov 1998, 70

It cannot be a practice essential to salvation AND discontinued.

D&C 132 confirms other prophets lived this way and it was not sin, which does not mean they were required live it, only allowed to live it.

It is no longer allowed, whether it was before or not is irrelevant. Celestial marriage is required for salvation, that is the interpretation given.

MH — Just touching base because I respect you for putting this out there.

I don’t see this as a question of opinion — it’s one of belief. And, while we can discuss reasons for our belief or disbelief, that discussion isn’t going to change what we believe with scant few exceptions. My belief about plural marriage is fairly nuanced, as I believe the history of the practice is. I don’t understand how it can be comprehensively characterized with a simple declaration that it was or wasn’t of God. I have the same problem with the same characterization of the priesthood ban. When you have prophets signing God’s name to something, declaring that they lied about God’s dictating something is a nontrivial declaration that I haven’t yet found evidence to justify, and that is quite a few layers of nuance away from declaring prophets infallible. And there is no way of providing that evidence through an appeal to history or reason — the only sufficient evidence is going to have to come directly from God.

Consequently, I don’t see a point to explicating my understanding and belief alongside of those of others in this space. I haven’t found the bloggernacle to be a place where deeply nuanced understandings of highly emotional topics are given much consideration — or, at least, enough consideration as to compensate for the mischaracterization and emotional reaction that comes from inadequate consideration.

So I’m just tagging in say that I’ve read your thoughts and respect your desire to talk about this in real terms.

Then the central issue for many is that they want prophets to be infallible, and that standard simply has not been met in the history of the world. We either have fallible prophets doing the best they can to transmit God’s will as best they understand it (with the occasional direct and unmistakably pure revelation) or we have men doing the best they can to lead an organization according to what they believe God’s will is. Frankly, there are people in our scriptures who have been called prophets who fit both categories, so I’m not willing to hold modern prophets to a standard no other prophets in history have been able to meet – especially when they have never claimed to be living that standard. I can’t blame people for not being what they’ve never claimed to be.

Holden, there are at least 2 references to men being swallowed by sharks or sperm whales, being inside for 2 days, and then coming out alive. See http://www.ldssundayschool.org/Lesson_33

“There have been other modern day reports of men being swallowed by fish and living to tell the tale. Edward B. Davis, Associate Professor of Science and History at Messiah College, in Grantham, PA came across an article describing a man off the Falkland Islands who had been inside the belly of a sperm whale for 36 hours due to a fishing/whaling accident. Even after 36 hours, he was found alive and an excerpt of the account can be read at the link here. This inspired him to find more information.

The link also references a second man who was swallowed by a shark in the English channel. Two days later, his fellow sailors found and killed the shark. When they opened it up, they found their unconscious friend alive and took him to a hospital. A newspaper article entitled “The Jonah of the Twentieth Century” is dated from the 1920′s or 1930′s

Unfortunately the links no longer work, but I do recall reading them and being quite amazed. I haven’t been able to verify the accuracy of the report. Perhaps it is not accurate, but it does give one pause to the Jonah story.

I agree with Ray. I’ve often said that I believe most LDS have an inaccurate perception of prophetic inspiration, and we probably assume more of a prophetic infallibility than we should. (Of course, the church does seem to encourage some of these claims as well.)

Ok, Cowboy, we really must discuss Joshua’s Unholy war. I’d also like to hear your take on Abraham and circumcision. Clearly circumcision was a pagan practice at the time of Abraham, and I think this practice highly influenced Abraham accepting circumcision as Godly.

I’ve also heard some minority Jewish scholars claim that Abraham was deceived when he tried to sacrifice Isaac, and that the real miracle was that the angel intervened to prevent the death of Isaac. Other scholars claim the sacrifice of Isaac story was to counter-act the common belief (as late as 600 BC) that child sacrifice was ok. The moral of Abraham’s not sacrificing Isaac actually shows that child sacrifice is not ok, and that modern people (as in 600 BC people) should not be sacrificing children because God saved Isaac. If one subscribes to this interpretation, then it surely would seem to indicate that Abraham was led astray initially. One scholar even says it was Abraham’s “imagination” which led him to attempt to sacrifice Isaac. See my Abraham post.

MH,

You say:

“If a prophet can make mistakes in revelation, then it certainly does force us as members to more closely analyze what they say when speaking “in the name of God.””

A prophet does not get revelation when he does not speak by the gift of the Holy Ghost. The problem is, the burden has NEVER been on the prophets to differentiate between opinion and revelation. The burden has ALWAYS been on US, the regular everyday Joe Latter Day Saints to get revelation in confirmation. So this has always been our duty anyway to not only “analyze” (i.e. ponder) but to get revelation ourselves.

“For those that believe polygamy is something that can be practiced by mere mortals with God’s blessing, I wonder why they stay LDS. The fundamentalist believe everything they do with the inclusion of polygamy. Why not go with your beliefs and join those that think the same way? I’m not trying to pick a fight, I just don’t get it.”

That question can come only from someone, it seems to me, that holds a very thin belief or understanding of Priesthood Authority as belonging to Prophets, Apostles, Bishops and others of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If I at all felt, and there are members who have felt and therefore have joined other Mormon groups, they had any divine priesthood authority then most likely I would join them. I have to often turn the question around and wonder why those who don’t believe polygamy was ever divine remain Mormon? Only because they don’t have to deal with it as a concrete practice.

I will give the possibility that Joseph Smith might have made a mistake with Fanny Alger and even others. He never claimed to be perfect. However it isn’t that simple as calling polygamy a mistake. The priesthood ban was never written down, might have been a personal revelation to Brigham Young and each individual prophet up until Kimball for its continuation, doesn’t seem to have a beginning with Joseph Smith, and was never claimed to be a permanent covenant. Polygamy, on the other hand, is an actual written down solid revelation by Joseph Smith. Not to mention the mortal practice has been discontinued, but the spiritual practice in the Temple remains. The revelation continues to be in the Doctrine and Covenants as an official authoritative revelation. To question that is to put into question the very idea that Joseph Smith had any actual and authoritative revelations ever! To dismiss polygamy as a mistake is to do more than admit Joseph Smith was fallible, but to completely reject that he was a prophet. If he can’t get something as basic and serious as that right without a serious call to repentance and a loss of priesthood authority, how can he get anything right?

Aboz:

I can partly agree with your comments, which also means I partly don’t. I think for our own sakes we each have a responsibility to ourselves, to God, and to those we associate with, to make sure that the positions of Doctrine, Initiatives, and Policy, that we embrace as coming from the Church, to the best of our knowledge and intentions, actually represents the mind, will, and voice of God. On the other hand, we are commanded to recognize as taught by Scripture that “whether by Gods mouth, or the mouth of his Prophets, it is the same”. There is clearly no established pattern, such as in the case of Pentacostals speaking in tongues, where the Prophet speaks and the members are to interpret/verify. The counsel to test the Prophets words has never been an encouragement to make sure the Prophet is right, rather it has been a call to obtain a testimony independent of blind obedience that the Prophet is speaking in behalf of the Lord. In other words, it is entirely the Prophets responsibility to verify his words.

Whilst i have no fondness for polygamy,or human sacrifice,I have been led to think of Abraham’s behaviour,and that of JS as tests of both obedience and sacrifice.On this level i can see them as necessary parts of our development,paradoxical as this may be.Abraham was consequently known as the friend of God-because he had shared the experience of being required to sacrifice his son in order to fulfill God’s requirements.The intervention of the angel was symbolic of the Saviour’s intervention on our behalf-Christ is the lamb in the thicket.We sacrifice a tithe of our son’s lives through their missions,and JS was testing the saints to destruction-possibly by revelation.I’m open to finding out.I think.Or maybe not.He did say something to the effect that a religion that did not require the sacrifice of that which is most precious to us is not a true religion.Scary stuff eh.But,unfortunately for me,I kind of see his point.

Cowboy,
Improve the communication … or just teach obedience and that the Lord will not let his mouthpiece lead the church astray, and with a sweeping statement like that, you can keep running the church with imperfect communication.

Sometimes the frustrations felt by many that seek website forums like this one are caused by the church sometimes seeming to go the easy route (latter option).

Just to be clear, the communication that I think needs improving is revelation.

Instead of trying to parse out whether a prophet is speaking as a prophet and following him either way…I think I’ll just flip a coin. I mean if God’s message can be spread by men who show remarkable signs of fraud for personal gain and offer troubling and contradictory advice in spiritual matters than God can surely influence something as simple as a coin toss. Heads we drink beer, Tales we drink Postum. Come on HEADS!!!!

Word.

Hawkgrrl, are you saying that the Bickertonites are a breakaway group of the Rigdonites? That wasn’t clear to me.

Hawkgrrrl, my very first post as a guest blogger was on Joshua’s Unholy War in Feb. (I was surprised my blog had about twice as many comments on the topic than Mormon Matters, but I was a newbie then.) I can post again, but I think I’ve personally beaten that topic to death, but if anyone wants to revive it here, then go to http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/07/joshuas-unholy-war/

My favorite comment was #4: “This blog post seems like an unholy war against holy scripture.” At least you can see I’m consistent in my beliefs about prophets…

Let me preface my words by saying I do not wish to offend. My conclusions below are simply a logical approach to all of this. I will freely admit that it is impossible to KNOW the root of all of this, but these are some of my thoughts when I try to think through these issues without reliance on fuzzy feelings of emotion, or the spirit, or faith, or whatever you wish to call them.

The mental gymnastics taking place on this site trying to conform the ideas that some omniscient god leads and has led this church since its conception and what the church leaders have done since (polygamy, treatment of blacks, etc.) are astounding. It seems to me that god chooses to lead the church and the world in a very confusing hide-the-ball manner, rife with contradictions, illogical actions, and extremely fallible prophets, or he does not exist (or does not involve himself with the world). If any of you ran your families or your businesses in the same manner with which god supposedly runs the world, would they be successful?

I’m sorry, but JS marrying teenage girls or women who were already married makes no sense whatsoever. So, what do I make of that?

Well, several possibilities remain:

1) JS made mistakes, contrary to what god wanted, but was still a prophet.
2) JS’ actions were not mistakes, but were the will of god.
3) JS’ actions were not the will of god, but were not really offensive to god either. They were inconsequential.
4) JS’ mistakes caused him to lose his mantle as prophet.
5) JS was never a prophet; his mistakes were the mistakes of a man.

If number 1 is true, then why did god, being omniscient, choose a man with such a great weakness? Number 1 is dubious to me.
If number 2 is true, how can god teach that adultery is the worst sin besides murder and denying the holy ghost, and then command JS to do the things he did? Number 2 is offensive to me. I would sooner not believe in god than believe he commanded JS to do the things he did.
If number 3 is true, see number 2. If none of these actions bother god then he is contradicting his own commandments.
If number 4 is true, then who replaced JS? BY? I think not. While the church teaches of the importance of family, he tore families apart by claiming women for himself who were already married.
If number 5 is correct, then we actually have a conclusion that does not require mental gymnastics.

Re: Cowboy no. 31

(Sorry for coming to this kind of late)

You say, “Can we really accept on his word, every other revelation where he was the sole link between God and the Church?” I respect what you’ve had to say in trying to understand this issue. But I really think your question presents a false choice. I don’t think the Church says we have to “accept on his word.” I’m thinking about the promise of spiritual confirmation here. We don’t have to believe Joseph’s word, I don’t think. We have to confirm what he said, trust at times, but not just stop at believing on his word. This approach allows Joseph to be a prophet, while not infallible.

On top of that, Joseph’s claims about this or that are not the end of the story. There’s also the structure of the Church he set up, the priesthood ordinances, the good works of the Church, not to mention the years of revelation that followed Joseph. So, again, to set this polygamy question as an “either/or” question is a false set-up. In other words, while much of the Church’s authority and divinity rests on the reality of Joseph as Prophet, not everything rests on him. There’s also Brigham, and Lorenzo, not to mention Gordon, and now Thomas.

THEN, when you throw in the principle that the Church progresses line upon line, I think you can fully accept Joseph as Prophet, while still refusing to agree that polygamy is an eternal principle.

MH,

I appreciate your response and I too understand your reasoning. I agree that one can always resort to god’s ways are higher than man’s ways to end any extrapolation of human logic to that of deity. But at the same time, how many times has the church, or its members, pointed to logic as a source of evidence for the truthfulness of the church? Many examples exist: the structure and leadership of the church, the way it is the “same” here as any other meetinghouse on the planet, the restoration of the priesthood, the fairness of the afterlife wherein those who couldn’t receive the gospel here will receive it there, etc. It seems the church plays the logic card (or the science card–but I will save this for another time) whenever it suites it but whenever logic cuts against the church or its history it is simply dismissed as inferior to god’s ways and therefore irrelevant, or it is used to show that things are supposed to be confusing so that we will acquire and exercise our faith (faith is another topic I would like to discuss in more detail, specifically, can someone explain WHY it is good to believe in something we can’t see?–but that should be another topic for another day as well).

Let me clarify a few points, it’s not that I have a problem with the idea of a prophet making mistakes. I don’t. But, again, considering the church’s stance on sexual sin, I do have a problem with the idea of a prophet 1) taking for himself women who are already married and 2) using authority to convince young (sometimes very young) women to marry him because god commanded it. How many times have we heard the leaders say that a man should not say to his girlfriend, I prayed and learned that we should be married, you do not need to pray about it? Yet, it appears JS did just that to convince young girls to marry him. If we look at the squeaky clean image of the prophets of the last 50 years, unless I never heard the gossip or rumors, it is in such contrast to JS and BY. Why wouldn’t god have chosen men of similar caliber to bring back the church?

It seems very logical to me that god would call prophets and speak to them and have them teach the people. But looking at the track record of the prophets, and the contradictory teachings of the prophets, I’m not so sure the prophet plan is a good one. If they didn’t have 50 wives and they didn’t contradict each other, while god remains the same forever, it would make more sense. I understand that many of you believe that it is not supposed to make sense, because we need faith, but it just doesn’t appear to be a house of order to me.

However, as MH alluded, and many of you may be thinking, if you don’t believe, why are you here?

I guess my question is this: how does one justify believing JS and BY were prophets, while believing all the things they did? I understand faithful members who don’t know all the details of JS and BY’s personal lives. I understand people who leave the church based on them. But I have a hard time understanding how many of you can know so many of the sordid details, and yet, still believer. Because now that I have learned some of the specifics, things which I cannot unlearn, I don’t see how I could ever feel about the church the way I did before I learned all of these things.

And let me clarify, I do not want people’s advice on reading the scriptures and praying, I want to know how one can logically adapt what appear to me to be dichotomous beliefs.

Hunter:

You are right that was a false choice, and one that apparently favored my perspective. A quick response is that in theory I am entirely with you. If God revealed to me that the underlying themes of the Church are all true, ie, Joseph Smith, the Priesthood, and he also revealed that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was an essential step towards accepting his gospel and qualifying for salvation, then that is the end of the story. At that point it really wouldn’t matter what sorts of details we can dig up about Joseph Smith’s conduct, because God has spoken. Being entirely honest here, I have played the active faithfull believing member role. I strive(d) to live the commandments, to qualify for the Holy Ghost, I have served a mission, been faithfull in my marriage, tried to serve dilligently in my callings, and become more Christlike. While many of those qualities still remain with me, I have hit a point where I feel like it’s time to call a spade a spade. I have not had this powerful witness of The Holy Ghost that erases doubt and demystifies the eternities. What I have had is faith and belief, but no divine manifestations which I can clearly acknowledge as “revelation” about The Church or Joseph Smith, etc. So now, having tried to realize Moroni’s promise, I have decided that it is time to logically evaluate my faith – and to be honest, for the first time things actually make sense. I know others would disagree, and I will not even pretend to know or understand their experiences with God and religion, but for me the answer seems to be clear, somewhat. Given that I usually tend not to consider the possibility that others have had higher manifestations, but if I am being fair then I would have to acknowledge that I can’t speak for the experiences of another.

Dexter, I don’t mean this to be dismissive in any way. I mean that sincerely. However:

There simply are so many statements that I find to be false assumptions in your comments that it’s impossible for me to address them adequately without writing a thesis and totally derailing this thread. Some examples of such statements:

1) “fuzzy feelings of emotion, or the spirit, or faith, or whatever you wish to call them” (Read my comments and those of others more closely. There are a LOT of them that don’t come close to fitting that description.)

2) “It seems to me that god chooses to lead the church and the world in a very confusing hide-the-ball manner, rife with contradictions, illogical actions, and extremely fallible prophets” (or he allows mortals to be mortals and doesn’t dictate everything to them – what we term “Satan’s plan”)

3) “JS marrying teenage girls or women who were already married makes no sense whatsoever” (There are any number of ways to “make sense” of it, if you look at it as more than just an attempt to get laid.)

4) “If number 1 is true, then why did god, being omniscient, choose a man with such a great weakness?” (Cause there ain’t no other choice.)

5) “how can god teach that adultery is the worst sin besides murder and denying the holy ghost, and then command JS to do the things he did?” (God hasn’t taught that [too long to explicate here again], and there is ample evidence that sex wasn’t the primary motivation involved in all the marriages. It seems it was involved in some to some degree, but it certainly wasn’t with all of them – and it certainly wasn’t the primary motive in most, if not all.)

6) “If none of these actions bother god then he is contradicting his own commandments.” (By letting his prophets be human?)

7) “While the church teaches of the importance of family, he tore families apart by claiming women for himself who were already married.” (No, he didn’t. Every married woman he married remained married to her current husband – and even kept living with that husband.)

I’m going to stop here, since I’m not even through your first comment. I’ll simply say that there are so many assumptions and wrong conclusions that there’s no way to address them all adequately – and, remember, this is coming from someone who isn’t convinced it was understood and handled correctly at any point throughout the process but who does believe that monogamy as we know it in mortality isn’t the exclusive state of eternity.

Cowboy, I think we’re on the same page, actually. I just wanted to respond because I didn’t feel like my approach to understanding polygamy was being represented. I was not trying to intimate that YOU needed to be more spiritual (or whatever) in your approach to the subject. In the end, no, I don’t think Joseph Smith’s experiment with polygamy was divinely mandated, but I feel that I can logically put aside that aspect of his life and work without throwing out all the rest. That’s all.

Dexter, atheism is a bad bet because it is a belief choice that defaults to the pessimistic view of the null hypothesis, as Nibley says, that no can never be as wrong as the answer yes, in the face of lack of evidence. Atheists and agnostics trumpet the lack of evidence in something as a talisman to put on a magic show of well-intended deception, even though they don’t believe it is a deception, to make people think that lack of evidence is a clincher in favor of the answer No. On the other hand, faith in things that are unseen is simply using patience awaiting a better outcome in the face of lack of evidence. Furthermore, it is not right nor is it a good bet to give up one’s promised inheritance just because the null hypothesis has been invoked. Its better to hold out and keep one’s covenants in the hope of a better tomorrow. That is the difference between doubt and faith. Besides, if there is no God in the end, then keeping your covenants to do good things actually made a difference in the world. If you want to do something that makes a difference in the world, you might as well do it as an act of faith, because God is bound when you do what he says. You might as well make it so he is bound to bless you and not be pessimistic about his existence. To have atheism is to not have patience for a good outcome until better evidence arrives, which may well be after death. I can’t make that choice for you, but I can advise you that atheism is not a good thing, no matter how you dress it up in pretty clothes.

Anyone care to respond to Orson Scott Card’s take on polygamy (as elucidated in his novel “Saints” aka “A Woman of Destiny”)? Card portrays Smith as needing something that could bind (one of Card’s favorite concepts that springs up in so many of his books) the Saints together after his death. For Card, Smith’s charisma was the glue that kept the Saints working toward “Zion”, and the removal of the prophet would possibly foment the disintegration of the Church. With polygamy, Joseph created an inner circle of devotees willing to sacrifice _everything_ for the Lord, as necessary. From this core group of individuals, the survival of the Church would be assured.

If this take on polygamy is correct, I could potentially see God’s hand in it, as His way are higher than our ways, and He may choose to require people to do things they would abhor doing otherwise because those decisions and actions have far-reaching effects. I think of the prophet Hosea, who was told by God to marry a prostitute, who summarily left him.

I’m not saying I subscribe to Card’s premise, or that I believe polygamy was/wasn’t inspired of God. For me, I’m still in an information gathering phase on that count. But what does everyone think about Card?

Hunter:

Fair enough, and for what it is worth I took your comment to me as a repectful response, so no explanation required – thanks all the same.

Ray:

“(No, he didn’t. Every married woman he married remained married to her current husband – and even kept living with that husband.)”

I like you, but that’s not exactly a great defense. To be honest it makes the whole thing seem much weirder and more doctrinally inconsitent than anything, particularly if these were consumated marriages.

Dexter:

It sounds like we hold similar views. I find the logical footwork required to make sense out of the official version of Church history, to be a little to demanding of my abilities.

Cowboy:

“I find the logical footwork required to make sense out of the official version of Church history, to be a little to demanding of my abilities.”

Exactly.

That’s why most hypothesis that attempt to justify this get complicated, and I really do believe that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one. It is very easy and simple to argue against the behavior of JS here, and extremely difficult to come up with explanations that support what he did.

MH–”there are at least 2 references to men being swallowed by sharks or sperm whales, being inside for 2 days, and then coming out alive….. Unfortunately the links no longer work, but I do recall reading them and being quite amazed. I haven’t been able to verify the accuracy of the report. Perhaps it is not accurate, but it does give one pause to the Jonah story.”

It wouldn’t matter to me if the NY Times had a page one about a family of four coming out of the largest whale every discovered doing cartwheels and telling us all what a great weekend they had inside. Never believed the story of Jonah was any thing other than an allegory, never will.

“The topic is neatly omitted from our manuals. Perhaps that’s because there’s not a justification.”

I think this a good observation, but I can see two divergent opinions running from here.

Aboz–”Besides, if there is no God in the end, then keeping your covenants to do good things actually made a difference in the world. If you want to do something that makes a difference in the world, you might as well do it as an act of faith, because God is bound when you do what he says. You might as well make it so he is bound to bless you and not be pessimistic about his existence.”

Doing good for the sake of doing good and being good would seem to me to be the purpose of our existence. In my mind, “fulfilling the measure of our creation” is not serving God so we can get a piece of candy. Making a difference in the world because the world needs to be different is the highest motivation. Would we feel differently about God if the only reason he cared about us is that he wanted his Father to think he was a good kid?

The choice to me is easy between a non-caring, obedient church-goer and a charitable person who loses faith along the way, but continues to grow their heart.

I’m open to both possibilities that the bible is literal, as well as allegorical. Either one could be correct, and I don’t have enough evidence to say one way or the other, though the evidence of later OT is certainly better than early OT.

I find it interesting that the Church doesn’t have an official position on whether nor not the bible is literal or allegorical. It seems odd in light of all the revelations about so many topics in the early days of the church. I wonder what Brigham Young would have said if asked if the bible is literally true or allegorical.

Here is a link to the official position of the church: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/reverence-for-the-bible

MH,

Near the beginning of this post, I stated that you were very brave in writing about this subject. I think that was an understatement…

Cowboy,

I realize that our exchange happened what seems like ages ago now, but hopefully you know that my comment about your political correctness was in reality a compliment to you. I actually hope to get better at expressing myself without all the baggage. (Imitation is the highest form of flattery.) You do an admirable job of writing without offending, something everyone here could learn from including me.

All the rest of you,

Not that I’m a big advocate of much of the D&C, but Section 9 may have some inspired meaning behind the words. (As many of you know, I believe in God and consider myself a Christian. I realize that makes me an outsider with most of the intellectual sorts as well as being labeled a non-believer by the more conservative types here.) I have found that spiritual promptings can and do have meaning at times, so I’m not willing to dismiss them altogether. Having said that, I have also found that knowledge is power and the more study one can do on any subject, the better the chance of getting the right answer. Therefore the message of D&C 9 is rather profound in stating that answers from God come after properly studying things out and coming to a conclusion based on that study.

If someone studies polygamy/polyandry, like MH has done, and then comes to the conclusion that it was inspired doctrine from God, I can respect that. Where I have issue is someone not doing their due diligent, but simply praying and searching for a feeling to confirm there already preconceived bias and then stating they believe in the principle. In other words, read the books MH has dared to read with an open mind set on learning and then draw a conclusion about this particular principle after putting in the homework. You have every right to know if it true or not as, according to Mormon theology, it’s the order of heaven. Some of us have been down this path and are very comfortable with the belief that not only was it not inspired, but actually demeaning to women and the source of untold broken hearts. You may come to a different conclusion, but don’t make the mistake that Oliver made. Put in the effort…

MH–You’re well read and communicate well. I hope the Lord will give you a testimony that is equal to your intellect.

As I read this post, I thought about a talk given by Elder Dallin Oaks:

Dallin H. Oaks, “Our Strengths Can Become Our Downfall,” Ensign, Oct 1994, 11

MH–

I think to be fair, when this subject is explored, we should look at how the women felt about polygamy.

I’ve always enjoyed the perspective Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner gave in an address at BYU in 1905.

http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm

MH–what is your take on her account?

Rule#1 If you want over a 100 posts on your thread, put Polygamy in the title.

“not serving God so we can get a piece of candy” you say. Blessings of God are not candy, and covenants are not something to be trifled with. The Lord will not be mocked, and he will have obedience, or there is a consequence. The blessings are the natural consequence of obedience. I never said this is to get candy. This is to obey the demands of a God who is offended if we reject the blessings he seeks to bestow on us, and who will exact justice if we don’t accept those blessings and do what he requires of us. If you don’t want the blessings, then perhaps you should think about hellfire before going into whatever glory you might merit if you want to trifle with this and call it mere candy.

Too often we want to attribute to the prophet the omniscience of God. But they are men and products of their environment, upbringing and understanding of the universe…but that is another topic.

First look at verse 66 God clearly wanted to expand on the revelation but doesn’t and to my knowledge he has not produced any scripture finishing the revelation. So any conclusion based on 132 is only a partial understanding of the revelation.

If we look at Joseph’s life he, and others, clearly practiced polyandry(wives with multiple husbands) and possibly polygyny(husband with multiple wives) at the same time, which is some sort of group marriage. As pointed out earlier, verse 41 implies that polyandry may be acceptable to God if properly anointed. Over time whatever relationship amongst married individuals Joseph has instituted was replaced by only polygyny. Then the polygyny that the church members had started practicing was, and still is, denounced by the church (or God if you believe that the current prophets are inspired by him).

So to those who believe that polygyny is what was revealed in 132 I say you have misunderstood the scriptures.

Jared,

I read your link, and found it very interesting. Here are some impressions of mine. (1) Quoting from the link, “An angel came to him and the last time he came with a drawn sword in his hand and told Joseph if he did not go into that principle, he would slay him.” I have always found this difficult to believe (and even self-serving to Joseph.) It does not seem to square with Biblical practicies of polygamy, IMO. Now I know that “we belive the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly”, yet to my knowledge, Joseph made no changes to the Bible regarding polygamist practices, nor did he say that Sarah giving Hagar as another wife to Abraham to be inaccurate.

(2) If Lightner received this angelic visit, why didn’t Emma? (or Hagar, or Leah, or all the other polygamist wives.) Certainly Joseph said the same thing to Emma. If Emma had received a visitation, surely she would have felt the same way as Lightner. If this was such an important principle, why didn’t Emma receive a visit like Paul on the road to Damacus, or Alma the Younger?

(3) I thought it was interesting she referred to RLDS as “Josephites”, named after Joseph III. I was familiar with “Brighamites”, but not “Josephites.”

(4) She made a very interesting reference to Joseph having children with other wives. “I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.” I found this very interesting. Leonard made a similar reference. I have no idea who she is referring to, but DNA evidence has failed to produce evidence of Joseph’s offspring except through Emma’s line.

RE: Bible literal or allegorical?

Perhaps this is best suited for a different thread but does it matter whether it is literal or allegorical? Do we need to know which parts are literal and which parts are allegorical? I grew up believing it was literal so I was disappointed to be told, after reading the entire thing, that parts may be allegorical. But perhaps my disappointment was misguided? What does “true as far as translated correctly” mean? Is it not “true” if things expressed in a literal fashion were allegorical? If the church said the same about the BOM (literal or allegorical) wouldn’t we be disappointed? Have church leaders stated that specific stories in the bible are allegorical?

Adam’s post states the quote we have all heard, “The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray… If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God…”

I have always been troubled with what does it mean for him to “lead [us] astray.” What level of impropriety is enough to be considered leading astray? If polygamy was inspired, it’s a difficult pill to swallow for many. If polygamy was not inspired, is that an error large enough to be considered leading the people astray?

Have other members of the 12 clarified the phrase “lead you astray?

Personally, if polygamy was the choice of a man and was not inspired, it seems like a glaring enough error that I don’t understand why God would not step in and clarify the matter. If the prophets walk and talk with God why wouldn’t this be corrected immediately or prevented? And for those who would counter by saying he needed to allow them to make their choices and grow individually, I just don’t see that. Isn’t the point of a having a prophet to have at least one clear conduit of communication for the sake of all the people even if it means less personal growth for the individual serving as prophet?

Great Holden, then I guess I’ll continue to worship my God, and you can have yours. Its great to live in a free country.

Aboz,

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that your comments at least allude to the general principle that when in doubt, you are better off believing, just in case the Church is true. I have also seen other posts (one was entitled, I believe, “What if the Church isn’t True”) on this site where people have said something to the effect of: if the church is not true, being a member is still a noble and therefore satisfying way to live my life and I wouldn’t change my life much anyway, so it wouldn’t really bother me.

Frankly, I find this type of reasoning to be very simplified. I mean no offense as I used to think the exact same way. But really, such a belief cheapens the value of expanding one’s mind in search for truth. I believe the journey of contemplating and trying to discover for one’s self his/her purpose in this world and trying to answer the following questions: why am I here? where did I come from? what do I want to make of my life? what happens when I die?, has an immense and immeasurable value. I realize that these are the very questions the Church advertises to help people along the path. But the difference is that I think there is much greater value in the process of trying to discover the answers to those questions for one’s self, even if no clear answer is reached, than to be told the answers by someone else. I think life is most fully lived when individuals are true to themselves and live to best fulfill the potentials that they have come to realize they possess. I do not believe it is best lived by following another’s rules and trying to fill the potential that another says that one has. I think this pattern remains true of members: those who truly adopt the teachings of the Church as their own are probably the happiest. But the theory of when in doubt, believe just in case it is true contradicts this principle and I think leads to unhappiness.

In short, I don’t think the value of truth lies in possessing it. I believe its value lies in the journey of discovering it for one’s self, whatever it may be.

Aboz—I will let you know my wife sometimes say I can be an a**, although she is too nice to say it that way.

Can we move back to discussing the post and lay off the judgments about character and personal righteousness?

you people commented about my “simplistic” outlook so I made it simple for you, elaborating. And now it’s a judgment of personal righteousness. Interesting….

I think I’m quite done with overly sensitive souls here that are now finding fault with my thinking. It is so typical that people that don’t like what you think about what they are doing or acting instantly rush in an infantile way to accuse you of judging them.

Aboz, I believe you judged me and then Ray pointed it out. I don’t really have a problem with you judging me. You can say whatever you like. But you spoke of my obedience when you know nothing of my level of obedience. That is the real problem, in my opinion. Not that you judged, but that you are speaking of a subject that you know nothing about. This is why I think Ray asked you to stick to the topic. If you want to discuss the points I made, I would happily engage you, but when you comment on someone’s obedience it leaves us all nowhere to go with the discussion.

FOR THE RECORD:

We almost never delete comments on this blog – almost never.

My comment followed Aboz’s comment, and that is unfortunate in one way: It made it look like I was talking to Aboz alone. I wasn’t. We have had to delete at least three comments on this thread, and Aboz’s wasn’t one of them. It was a minor example, but it was the fact that there have been multiple comments that were nothing but personal attacks that prompted my comment. The deleted comments were horrible – and they came from BOTH “sides” of this issue.

Aboz, sincerely, my comment was not directed at you. I apologize for that impression.

Brjones,

That’s a tall order. Most of the comments have been saying, “if we can’t trust the prophet on this issue, why should we trust him on anything else?” While the first comments were generally respectful, it did seem to turn into a spitting contest at times.

Obviously there are many answers to that question. I’d recommend comments 20, 34, 45, 46, 51, 61, 62, 100, 110, 112 for a quick overview. (Of course, others can add to the list.)

I don’t know why I waste time on these forums. Dexter, you can say whatever you want too, or think whatever you want, but you are the one that gave the impression that you weren’t doing any of the “churchy” stuff and that you were going off into some atheistic thing. It didn’t take much to assume that you weren’t, and I apologize if you are still doing your church duties. My mistake. It always seems to disintegrate into a pile of BS every time I get on here, no matter how nice I try to be. I should know better. Aboz is now retiring from Mormon Matters.

Fwiw, a post of mine once started on defining the church, and eventually disintegrated into a discussion on mayonnaise.

Really hawk, it’s spelled either kumbaya, or kum ba ya, get it right. Sheesh.

Come on, Aboz, don’t be like that. I think it was just a misunderstanding between you and Dexter. Obviously your point was that you can’t conclusively make a determination as to the truth of the doctrine if you haven’t TRULY put it to the test, which, in your opinion, includes complete obedience. I agree that from Dexter’s posts it seems unlikely that he is currently striving to live every gospel principle, although I could be wrong. I think the frustration on Dexter’s end probably stemmed from the fact that you don’t know what Dexter has been through in the past. He might have been an active member his entire life, served a mission, and otherwise tried his absolute hardest to live the gospel completely, and eventually decided that even at that, the church wasn’t true. Your statement seemed to imply that someone like Dexter wasn’t really qualified to speak to the truthfulness of the church because he wasn’t living it. That might not be what you meant, but that’s how it came off, and it seemed a little judgmental, because it seems to presuppose that he never had tried to live it, and that, it seems to me, is where the frustration came from. Either way, in my experience, most of the serious posters on this board are pretty level headed, and if someone gets their nose out of joint, a little clarification is usually all that’s needed to assuage any hard feelings.

#112 MH–

Thanks for reading and commenting on Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner. I enjoy reading your post and commentary. I may not agree with you, but please don’t think of me as an antagonist.

 KG McB: Exactly. Thou shall not covet another man’s wife. People are saying that women being jealous of the other wives is a base behavior–marriage is holy, and that feeling of anger is righteous I believe, because someone has intruded on a sacred bond. So many members are comfortable with being content that they’ll just never know what happened with JS picking up other men’s wives. But our church is based on this man–I need to find something to reconcile this, because this could not be and is not Godly. I don’t think it’s something we weren’t ready for–I believe it is in complete violation with the designs of God concerning men, women, and marriage.