We know why it ended, and we know the Book of Mormon condemns it. Why did polygamy start in the Mormon church?
[poll id=”332″]
Discuss.
Agency, America, Apostasy, Faith, Freedom, Morality, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Mormon Culture, Uncategorized, weekend poll
Origin of LDS Polygamy (Weekend Poll)
I believe that Joseph approached the Lord while translating the Bible. He had translated the Book of Mormon teachings to not practice polygamy and that caused cognitive dissonance with practice in the OT.
As the sage taught, “Be careful what you ask for.”
We know as much why it started as to why it ended. The records are clear on both counts, unless you are fair enough to doubt both records.
I think Brother Brigham liked the idea and influenced Joseph.
If one posits that:
-The strongest, closest human bond is a relationship between two people is that of spouse
-This bond engenders the best atmosphere/influence upon the “natural” tendencies of humans to become Christ-like (humble, kind, charitable, etc). In other words, any righteous single person could be better if bonded with another such righteous person.
-This bond is not simultaneously possible with multiple wives
Then, Joseph, having had many amazing, powerful, and awe-inspiring revelations–especially the concepts of posterity and kingdoms in heaven–came to believe that to be a true prophet of the Lord, he needed to practice polygamy as so many of them did. So, he convinced himself God was the author of D&C 132–conveniently received the day before he was to meet with Hyrum to make one last effort to convince him to support the practice.
As to why God, supposedly, gave Abraham, David, Solomon, et al, wives and concubines. I think it (if God was even involved in it) was simply a cultural practice. Rich men and ruling men of all the surrounding cultures practiced it, so they did.
One more assumption, in case it is not obvious: God wants us to become Christ-like (to use a term that represents many attributes of righteousness. That is the object and design of our existence and His overarching goal.
“As to why God, supposedly, gave Abraham, David, Solomon, et al, wives and concubines. I think it (if God was even involved in it) was simply a cultural practice. Rich men and ruling men of all the surrounding cultures practiced it, so they did.” And JS wanted to be rich and to rule.
bisti, I imagine you feel such kind of earth-bound reasoning for every single revelation Joseph Smith ever had. It has as much pedigree and reason for existence as many others. The recording of polygamy revelation came about in the same way as baptism for the dead, as a later recording. In fact, the latter doctrine wasn’t even couched as a revelation, but a series of sermons.Are you saying that in all other instances when Joseph Smith wrote something down as “thus saith the Lord” they were genuine revelations, but in with polygamy he was lying? Or are you more consistent by saying that all instances of that sort he was lying, but with polygamy more gregarious?
My understanding was he was caught having an affair, and wanted to sleep with more women. Well, actually my whole understanding was he was having an affair and then when Emma found out (by seeing them in the barn doing the nasty) he said they were married so it wasn’t a sin.
Am I wrong?
Polygamy is an issue that has never seemed right to me. No matter how hard I try to justify it, the result is always a negative. Every once in awhile someone will offer up an explanation, that on the surface, seems to work. But after I think about it, the explanation breaks down.
I think Joseph probably convinced himself it was a revelation. Pursued it as if it were Gods will. I personally don’t think it was.
The other option I consider is that God did want some form of polygamy, but a lot if mistakes were made in application and implementation.
The Alger situation makes me lean to wards (1)
I’m not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg….. I believe Joseph Smith wanted to have sex with more than just Emma and wanted a justification for doing so. It was not a central belief in the beginning, but was instead ‘revealed’ after a period of time. So, it seems likely he borrowed from an outside source, as he did for other things as well. I tend to believe in the Cochranite influence on this.
‘Cochran dismissed traditional concepts of marriage, citing passages in the bible where seven wives shared one man. As early as 1818-1819 the group was referring to spiritual wivery. Cochran would assign women to the men since legal marriages were not considered valid.’
‘Cochran also was working towards a communal order where everything was held in common.’
‘Latter Day Saint historical sources indicate that Mormon missionaries were laboring successfully to make converts among Maine’s Cochranites as early as 1832: at the Church conference held in Saco, Maine on August 21, 1835, at least seven of the newly ordained apostles were in attendance.’
fbitsi writes: “If one posits that:
-The strongest, closest human bond is a relationship between two people is that of spouse
-This bond engenders the best atmosphere/influence upon the “natural” tendencies of humans to become Christ-like (humble, kind, charitable, etc). In other words, any righteous single person could be better if bonded with another such righteous person.
-This bond is not simultaneously possible with multiple wives”
Why is “this bond not possible with multiple wives”?
Nate, I’m sure a “godly” person could bond with multiple wives, however, that begs the question why not multiple husbands? And if there are multiple wives and multiple husbands, why the need for marriage?
I think Joseph probably caught a glimpse of light–that all human beings are saved together through a sealing which binds all of us to one another in a web–and then it got corrupted through his and Brigham Young’s mortal temptations and lenses until we have the illogical, demeaning, and distorted practice of polygamy.
Wait, we know why it ended? Pretty sure there’s disagreement there.
Yes, I’d love to hear Jettboy’s interpretation of why it started and ended. I don’t think it is nearly so clean cut as his comment.
“And if there are multiple wives and multiple husbands, why the need for marriage?”…an excellent point!
Joseph’s fertile religious imagination and increasing restoriationist tilt recombined the OT, the emerging revelations/ideas of eternal sealing, ever grander utopian ideas mixed together with increasing narcissism and desire for legacy and control enhanced with a little justificatory pinch supplied by Brigham, the Concranite converts led to the ill-advised experimentation with polygamy. The proto-experiment helps speed Joseph’s death leaving the emerging temple rituals and doctrine overlapping with the emreging ideas of polyandry. This becomes one of the central issues of the succession crisis. Brigham, now a firm backer of polygamy, defeats Emma, its opponent and then proceeds to morph it away from the more egalitarian polyandry approach perculating under Joseph into a full on male-dominated polygamy which he merges with his pet Adam-God doctrine. These pseudo-doctrinces solidify and get fully articulated as BY secures succession and then fights over theology with the Pratts and others. Ultimately, Brigham is losing the battle on Adam-God but winning on polygamy whose structure helps him solidify control over the church at every level. Before he dies he uses his last trump card and writes both into the still evolving temple ceremony.
And here we sit waiting for a prophet, seer and revelator to be called (or have the guts and religious imagination) to sort through the mess. So far our leaders don’t seem to want to touch it in any meaninful way with a ten foot pole or have simply not felt called to do so.
Yeah, he was lying pretty much every time he opened his mouth. That’s what false prophets do. Jesus had extremely strong things to say about them.
The popular answer on this poll definitely supports the hunch that I’ve had that, when plural marriage arrangements are legalized on the heels of legalized same-gender marriages, the LDS church would begin sanctioning same-gender marriages before they would ever reinstitute/allow polygamous marriages.
In that poll, I found that more people are against church acceptance of polygamy than are against polygamy coming back into church favor [while being in favor of the legalization of both came-out roughly equal].
With three-quarters of the people polled here saying that they believe LDS polygamy began with an unrighteous desire for sex, I can see why most are against it coming back and don’t see the level of intimacy and connection required to have a kind of “Zion” community arising out of united orders of plural marriage families.
Because temple sealing is the vehicle for the Abrahamic covenant, which is required to bind Heavenly Father’s children together for their exaltation.
rah [18] — that’s one of the best comments I’ve read so far this year.
Wife marries husband one, they have 2 kids, he dies. Wife marries husband two, they have 3 kids, he dies. Wife marries husband three, they have no kids together, but spend the next 40 years together before dying. Since polyandry equals “bad” we don’t believe she’ll have three husbands in the eternities. In fact, even if we reverse genders (polygny), that’s still “bad” in the eternities. Goodness, we’re starting to sound just all the other religions who believe the family is not an eternal unit. Maybe all this sealing stuff is just nonsense after all.
If only there was some way we could ask Jesus himself, right IDIAT?
Kullervo #24 – you have read the latter day interpretation of those verses and the way Jesus handled it, right? I think it was President Spencer W. Kimball, “Temples and Eternal Marriage,” Tambuli, Oct 1980, 25, who said:
“Dr. James E. Talmage writes: “The Lord’s meaning was clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman should be, since all except the first had married her for the duration of mortal life only. … In the resurrection, there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal in marriage for both time and eternity.” (Jesus the Christ, p. 548.) Undoubtedly, the first husband married the woman for eternity by a ceremony which was not limited by time. She became a widow at his demise until she should also die and join her husband. Now, she married brother number two, “until death do you part,” and it definitely parted them even before posterity, and he went into the spirit world through the veil and with no wife, for their contract also had been terminated by death. And brothers number three and four and five and six and finally number seven in turn all married her in temporary marriage, in which ceremonies were the limitations, “so long as you both shall live.””
President Kimball presupposes the first brother married the wife in the temple. He doesn’t address what happens now that we’ll seal that wife to all 7 brothers once she’s deceased. Nor does he address this curious question — what if she loved brother number 7 best of all and wants to spend eternity with him? As one apostle of old said, once you have eternal sealings, you of necessity have plurality. Or, we’ll be monogamous in the eternities despite the number of marriages and/or sealings performed, and we’ll all just have to make some hard decisions with respect to the person with which we’ll want to spend eternity as spouse. Who cares about polygamy practiced over 100 years ago. Better to care about what polygamy might be practiced in the eternities.
Yes I have, and like most Mormon interpretations of the Bible, it is a sort of sad exercise in question-begging.
The very best part is when Talmage said “the Lord’s meaning was clear,” and then proceeded to give a “meaning” that there is absolutely no way you would ever draw from the text without presupposing Mormon doctrine and then torturing the Biblical text until you make it talk.