A blogger faces excommunication for his OP stating that he does not believe D&C 132 and the early church practice of polygamy to have been inspired. In his blog post, he affirms that marriage is between one man and one woman, the church’s current teaching. If I were tasked with defending this individual, here’s what I would say.
Official Declaration 1
We repudiated not only the practice of polygamy but Pres. Woodruff also stated that we are not teaching it. [1]
I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage
Why then is it an issue for someone so far removed from its practice to disbelieve its origin was divinely inspired? Other discontinued practices, specifically the priesthood ban, that were considered doctrinal at the time have since been declared not doctrinal in origin.
President Hinckley’s Stance
We believe that living prophets trump dead ones by reinterpreting things through the process of ongoing revelation. Pres. Hinckley’s open dismissal of polygamy in the widely publicized CNN Larry King interview is much more recent than any pro-polygamy statements, most of which are over a hundred years old. Clearly, someone living today would be more beholden to current leaders’ views than to those of long dead leaders.
President Hinckley stated in his Larry King interview that polygamy was wrong. While he didn’t outright condemn the early practice of it, he marginalized its doctrinal importance by stating “it is not doctrinal” and saying it was limited to about 2-5% of Mormons when it was practiced (implying it was never practiced nor intended to be practiced on the level the FLDS have done). He also implies that it was “permitted” to be practiced rather than “commanded” to be practiced, which is inconsistent with statements made by then church president Brigham Young and perhaps by D&C 132 (in that Emma wasn’t “permitted” but told she would be destroyed if she refused):
Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah — before we get back to morals and morals, 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.
Larry King: Should there be arrests?
Gordon B. Hinckley: It’s matter of civil procedure. The church can’t do anything. We have no authority in this matter, none whatever.
Larry King: Would you like to see the state to clamp down on it?
Gordon B. Hinckley: I think I leave that entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It’s a civil offense. It’s in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We’re totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that’s a responsibility of civil officers.
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.
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.
Pew Forum Results
According to a Pew Forum Survey, 86% of Mormons polled said that polygamy is morally wrong. Here is an article about that result that was published in the church’s own paper, the Deseret News. If the church would like to excommunicate 86% of the membership for not believing polygamy is moral, I suppose that’s their right. But something tells me that’s not the hill we want to die on.
The Book of Mormon Condemns It
Although no contemporary church members have been told to pray for a testimony of polygamy, all have been told to study and pray about the Book of Mormon which is decidedly anti-polygamy:
Jacob 1:15 And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son.
Jacob 2:24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.
Mosiah 11:2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but … he had many wives and concubines.
Ether 10:5 Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines.
We have also not been specifically told to pray for a testimony of the D&C (where section 132 resides).
He Is Not Commanded to Live It
According to early practitioners of polygamy in the church, those who were “invited” to practice the principle were entitled to personal revelation on the matter. Some received it; some did not. The blogger who is under fire has not been asked to participate in polygamy. Why would he or any other contemporary member of the church be entitled to revelation on a principle they are not in fact asked to practice but are forbidden from practicing?
Although the recently published essay on lds.org upholds the divine sanction of polygamy as practiced by early church members, it also leaves plenty of room for doubt and question in statements such as these:
Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. Significant social and cultural changes often include misunderstandings and difficulties.
Many details about the early practice of plural marriage are unknown. Plural marriage was introduced among the early Saints incrementally, and participants were asked to keep their actions confidential.
Some ambiguity will always accompany our knowledge about this issue.
Given this ambiguity, how are church members unfamiliar with this practice and not beholden to follow it supposed to readily accept something so foreign and reprehensible when many church members at its introduction were likewise unable to accept it? How does one have the requisite love of monogamy that our current teachings require and also a contradictory testimony of a principle that doesn’t apply in our generation? That’s confusing and unnecessary. [2]
What’s your opinion?
[poll id=”483″]
- What would you say in this blogger’s defense aside from what has been said here?
- Do you think the disciplinary court is justified? If so, why? Do 86% of church members need to repent or get out?
- Should the church strike D&C 132 [3]?
Discuss.
[1] For those who believe that these statements by church leaders were just to present a public face that distanced us from the practice of polygamy, why then would it be objectionable for a blogger (also operating in a public forum) to likewise uphold the public notion that the church disavows polygamy? Didn’t these leaders set the “party line”?
[2] I could further point out that the Law of Sarah, the church’s original defense that was bolstered by Brian Hales in the church’s recent essay makes literally no sense for anyone who has actually read the Old Testament. Sarah proposed Abraham produce a child with her servant Hagar. It was Sarah’s idea because she owned the servant. When the servant got uppity, she kicked her to the curb, and thousands of years of bloodshed ensued. How that can be twisted to mean that a woman who refuses to let her husband take a second wife doesn’t really get a vote is pretty convoluted logic, and yet that’s what the Law of Sarah says.
Orson Pratt said:
“When a man who has a wife, teaches her the law of God, and she refuses to give her consent for him to marry another according to that law, then, it becomes necessary, for her to state before the President the reasons why she withholds her consent; if her reasons are sufficient and justifiable and the husband is found in the fault, or in transgression, then, he is not permitted to take any step in regard to obtaining another. But if the wife can show no good reason why she refuses to comply with the law which was given unto Sarah of old, then it is lawful for her husband, if permitted by revelation through the prophet, to be married to others without her consent, and he will be justified, and she will be condemned, because she did not give them unto him, as Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham, and as Rachel and Leah gave Bilhah and Zilpah to their husband, Jacob.” (The Seer, Vol.1, No.3, p.41)
President Joseph F. Smith (at the Reed Smoot hearing) said:
President Smith: The condition is that if she does not consent the Lord will destroy her, but I do not know how he will do it.
Question: Is it not true that … if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent.
President Smith: Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement.
Question: Then he is at liberty to proceed without her consent, under the law. In other words, her consent amounts to nothing?
President Smith: It amounts to nothing but her consent.
The Old Testament doesn’t require the wife’s consent because it was her idea; this was a part of slavery or having a servant. The women owned those women and gave them to their husbands to increase their own status as wives through offspring. The husbands didn’t request them, so there was no question of the wife’s consent or lack thereof. It was her disposing of her own property (slave) for her own gain and bears no resemblance to the polygamy practiced in the early days of the LDS church. Most contemporary Mormons would know nothing about the Law of Sarah if it were not for the recent polygamy essays in which this argument was resurrected.
[3] I highly recommend the excellent 14 part series that was published on By Common Consent by WVS on the history of D&C 132 to those who are interested.
Wheat & Tares 
When I compare the branches of the Latter Day Saint movement, that ranges from the Community of Christ on the left and the fundamentalist splinters on the right. The mainstream are the largest, and they lean fundamentalist. Their study of Ezra Taft Benson in Gospel Doctrine this year speaks volumes. Past doctrine builds up without much of it being disavowed. Polygamy is an issue that is on the back burner, but not disavowed. It is an essential doctrine for the Brighamites’ (and derivative branches’) vision of an afterlife. The men may be looking forward to sharing wives, whereas the sister wives in heaven may carry on with the same amount of animosity as they did in life, if not more.
In general, I’d say mormon men are more in favor of that arrangement than mormon women. I wonder, are there metal objects in heaven? They say Joseph Smith returned the golden plates to an angel. If there are other such objects to be found there, then the men better be prepared to duck. Likewise, if the situation were reversed and men had to share wives, then a whole lot of knife fights would be part of the equation.
Blast, I accidentally voted for “if polygamy is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.” I actually meant to click on “wider crackdown on dissidents.”
So, this polygamy post by Kirk Van Allen appeared Feb. 2 on a website, Mormonverse, with no other content than that one post. Then a month later, within a day of one another, several website writers with strained relationships with the LDS church (John Dehlin, Gina Colvin, Nearing Kolob) repost the essay on their sites and tell their readers that Mr. Van Allen is being pressured to take down his writing. How they know this, they do not say. Colvin and Nearing Kolob vaguely write “it has been reported.” Perhaps they are simply repeating what Dehlin wrote at Mormon Stories.
How did Dehlin know about pressure on Van Allen? How did Van Allen’s bishop or anyone else know the website Mormonverse exists? Without some explanations, the episode so far has a contrived quality to it.
The author’s wife (and the author) belong to several FB groups and have talked about what is happening to them. They are very distressed. I was unaware that John D. even knew about it.
I suspect there is much more to this story than meets the eye. His was not the first post to deconstruct D&C 132 in light of other scriptures and come to a similar conclusion.
If I had to guess, he has been vocalizing his post around the local area where he lives and some people complained.
Let’s face it the Church has this love-hate relationship with polygamy mainly because it involves the most important early leaders of the Church. To totally disavow the practice would put those early leaders in a bad light….
I am the author’s wife. Yes my husband is facing disciplinary action for his post. The Stake President has not been clear on how found out about the post. My husband recently graduated from school and wanted a project to work on. He decided to start a blog. His next post was going to be about how the church promotes individual liberty…ironically enough. John Dehlin picked this up because of how ludicrous it is. My husband writes one post and he’s threatened with a disciplinary council. Truth is stranger than fiction.
I don’t think it’s too big of a stretch to imagine that when a Mormon blogger is threatened with discipline they may reach out to those in the bloggernacle. That’s what I surmise from the widely reposted content.
I’m also wondering where some of this information is coming from. Gina Colvin didn’t mention excommunication, she said that church leaders are asking the blogger to take the blog post down but not what the penalty would be for not complying.
Personally I find polygamy to be bonkers but it doesn’t feel right inflating this isolated incident into something it’s not without all the information I need.
Ah, I posted that without refreshing the page. Thanks for the additional information.
Hawkgrrrl,
This is a nice add-on to the blog post in question. Thanks for elaborating on the self-serving nature of the so-called Law of Sarah.
I don’t see how any rational person can read 132 and not be bothered.
If everyone who hates polygamy is going to be threatened with disciplinary action, we’re going to become a tiny church real fast.
Does the 86% of LDS who say polygamy is morally wrong mean that it is only wrong now, but not wrong then? I think that is what most active LDS would say.
Scripture is scripture. It ain’t going away, even if it was uninspired. Decannonising it would be unthinkable. We live with the many contradictions and evils of the scriptures by ignoring them, not correcting them. We are commanded to incessantly read the Book of Mormon in part because it is the safest, most conventionally Protestant scripture we have.
Not inspired and not doctrinal are two different things. If he gets exed it will be because of his opinion of joseph smith not because we discontinued a practice.
I wanted to select 4 answers, and here’s how I would rank them:
(1) Ludicrous. Only creepy weirdos believe polygamy was divinely inspired.
(2) If polygamy’s wrong, I don’t want to be right.
(3) This is part of a wider crack down on dissidents; an effort to silence challenging questions.
(4) Leadership roulette. He loses.
I would have chosen leadership roulette but there’s little reason left to believe the “local matter” excuse anymore.
They’re not correlating information anymore. They’re correlating members and won’t be surprised if it begins to take on a Stalinist complexion.
Not taking a position one way or the other, but I think the issue he is probably being tried for is not his belief in polygamy, but the fact that he attacks the inspiration and by implication priesthood authority of Joseph Smith and the other men who promoted it. So the issue is not his challenge to polygamy, but his challenge to priesthood authority. I didn’t even read the whole post and found this gem. I think he could say whatever he wanted about polygamy, but saying this about former presidents of the church is fighting words for his leaders:
“Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and many others, by definition, committed adultery. Both presidents of the church married women who were already married and several women who were not virgins. Joseph Smith even lied, or as the church officially stated, he used “carefully worded denials” about the fact that he had many wives to the public and to Emma Smith. This does not help the case for the revelation or the obedience of church leaders to the commandments of God.”
MH: Just a point of clarification, “(2) If polygamy’s wrong, I don’t want to be right.” is a PRO-polygamy statement. It’s a turn of phrase, possibly originating in the 1972 soul song “(If Loving You Is Wrong) I Don’t Want to Be Right.”
Oh, I read it backwards. It should read,
(2) If polygamy’s right, I want to be WRONG.
That’s what I really meant to vote. As Rick Perry would say, “Oops.”
Bob says: “[Kirk is] being tried for is not his belief in polygamy, but the fact that he attacks the inspiration and by implication priesthood authority of Joseph Smith and the other men who promoted it.”
That’s a huge problem. If, as the church asserts, prophets and leaders are not infallible, then it follows that they’ve made mistakes, both as to doctrine and policy. If leaders are fallible then priesthood authority is not dependent on always being correct. The assertion that an attack on inspiration (to use Bob’s words) is an attack on priesthood authority is either (1) Blatantly false or (2) means we do believe our leaders are infallible.
Take your pick. Can’t have it both ways.
cen, LOVE IT!!!
Man, I hate polygamy as much as the next person, but this is a minefield. President Hinckley said that polygamy is not “doctrinal” and not “legal.” That actually matches what the Manifesto said, that they were *not* preaching polygamy as doctrine anymore *because* it was illegal (now, they weren’t barring people from living it if they felt it was their religious duty… which is why the government forced the Second Manifesto in 1904). This distinction is actually made painfully clear in the LDS.org essays. So there’s the technical side.
Anyone who promotes the idea that we should live in polygamy today is going to be excommunicated. Therefore, as the Deseret News article stated, a majority of Mormons are going to openly support a view that polygamy *practiced today* is morally wrong. This is to support the distinction between the mainstream church versus fundamentalist groups.
So, what gets a person in trouble is if they state that polygamy *as practiced by early church leaders* was morally wrong. This was why the painful sugarcoating on the LDS.org essays was necessary. Implying or outright stating that historical polygamy was not inspired when we have canonized revelation to the contrary accuses Joseph Smith of being a liar (or being deceived by Satan) and other church leaders as accomplices. That is not gonna fly at the next temple recommend interview.
Thou sayest.
Or third option, they don’t know what infallibility actually means and apply the same mistaken definition that they use to criticize the Roman Catholics (that infallibility means a person or leader can never make a mistake ever in public or private).
I’m slow today. My comment was aimed at cen.
“So, what gets a person in trouble is if they state that polygamy *as practiced by early church leaders* was morally wrong. This was why the painful sugarcoating on the LDS.org essays was necessary. Implying or outright stating that historical polygamy was not inspired when we have canonized revelation to the contrary accuses Joseph Smith of being a liar (or being deceived by Satan) and other church leaders as accomplices. That is not gonna fly at the next temple recommend interview.”
Are you saying that you believe that an angel with a flaming sword ordered it? Are you saying that it was not morally wrong at that time?
I can’t.
I can go with it’s possible followers in Joseph’s time believed him and entered into polygamy sincerely on his advice. I can go with it’s possible subsequent prophets didn’t reconsider polygamy and seek verification of Joseph’s revelation until the US government raised the heat. If I want to make myself feel good about the whole thing. But I’m not sure I’ve ever believed D & C 132 and I long for the time when I wasn’t even aware of it.
I could do without the sugarcoating, painful or otherwise, too. It’s long past time for an honest, clear-eyed look at what is reasonable and responsible and honorable to believe and what should be acknowledged for what it is.
I am wondering if the widespread publishing of the original blog post by Dehlin and Gina Colvin is actually hurting this guy by giving it more visibility than it originally had, thus creating a greater influence than intended….
It is not about polygamy, it is about disrespecting church leaders and the founder of the church.
If sustaining Joseph Smith and the first vision is a requirement for entrance into the church, then why wouldn’t critism and not sustaining Joseph Smith be an invitation for a DC?
In the 2007 PBS interview with Dallin Oaks, he talked about an ancestor who went to prison with her baby for three or four months for cohabitation. He says:
“That woman, Belle Harris, then lived in Provo. She was a dear aunt of my mother. When my mother was pregnant with me, she went to her aunt’s place, and I was born in that woman’s home — a home birth with doctors in attendance, so I feel kind of close to Belle Harris. In fact, Harris is my middle name, the maiden name of my mother. So polygamy is very close to me.”
I read that and thought, We’re doomed. We’re never going to get past this. He’s an honorable man who is loyal to his family.
Problem is, I have people I’m very close to. My daughters. And I can’t encourage them to stay part of a church that would excommunicate someone for publicly rejecting polygamy.
So is it just a matter of whose interests win? Or is there a right thing to do? WWJD?
Hmm, this is a hot mess.
Let’s just say when I go to renew my TR on Sunday I may float a few hypotheticals around to see where my local leaders are at on this one.
“Implying or outright stating that historical polygamy was not inspired when we have canonized revelation to the contrary accuses [1] Joseph Smith of being a liar (or [2] being deceived by Satan) and other church leaders as accomplices.”
I vote option #2. I don’t think it is out of the realm of possibility that Satan is capable of counterfeit revelations. (1) He claims to be the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4, also referenced in temple ceremony),
(2) Satan tried to tempt Jesus (Matt. 4:6, Luke 4:9) “Since you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here..”
(3) He tried to interrupt the First Vision JSH 1:15 “I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.”
(4) Joseph never shook this angel with a flaming sword’s hand so far as we know. This dubious story was related by Helen Mar Kimball anyway, so shouldn’t be considered as reliable as anything in the D&C. D&C 129:8 “If it be the devil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything; you may therefore detect him.” I imagine a flaming sword is a scary thing, but did Joseph shake hands?
“It is not about polygamy, it is about disrespecting church leaders and the founder of the church.”
Ken, I think you believe sustaining church leaders, right or wrong, is the 14th article of faith. But funny that it is not.
“If sustaining Joseph Smith and the first vision is a requirement for entrance into the church, then why wouldn’t critism and not sustaining Joseph Smith be an invitation for a DC?”
Is this really a requirement? Elder Bruce Porter back in 2000 said “Faith and repentance, baptism and bestowal of the Holy Ghost constitute the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ, being the essential requirements for entry into the celestial kingdom.”
If we’re adding belief in the First Vision and sustaining Joseph Smith when he was wrong (such as when he mismanaged the Kirtland Bank ) is a requirement, well I think that God would disagree.
“I am wondering if the widespread publishing of the original blog post by Dehlin and Gina Colvin is actually hurting this guy by giving it more visibility than it originally had, thus creating a greater influence than intended…”
I think it can be argued both ways. It could argued that Dehlin is protecting Kirk by providing unwanted publicity. Stake leaders could just postpone the DC until the coast is more clear, or at least until they have talked with GAs about the issue. If this really is a rogue stake president, a GA may tell the SP to back off, hoping that the bad publicity will go away.
This chapter from Signature Books talks about Old Testament laws and women, and Sariah’s actions weren’t the result of God’s commandments, but actually followed the code of Hammurabi.
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=5420
So Law of Sarah, my foot.
Thanks for the link Kristine. Looks like a fascinating book.
To the OP. The whole thing just makes my heart sink. Why oh why?
“Are you saying that you believe that an angel with a flaming sword ordered it? Are you saying that it was not morally wrong at that time?
I can’t.”
And that, Alice, is why I don’t currently have a temple recommend.
Alice, I’m not making an argument about whether polygamy is morally right. I’m trying to show how someone could get into trouble with the church by arguing that the early church leaders practicing polygamy was morally wrong.
Maybe this will make better sense. If I am teaching Primary sharing time and I start off with “Nephi was a murderer, a liar, and a thief,” then I can expect phone calls from parents and probably a meeting with the bishop. Did Nephi kill an unarmed man? Definitely. Did Nephi impersonate said man? Definitely. Did Nephi obtain this man’s possessions without permission? Definitely. But by phrasing it as murder, lying, and theft, I’m stating that Nephi’s actions were morally wrong. This is unacceptable in our church culture. Nephi’s actions cannot be publicly declared morally wrong because they were, by definition, sanctioned by God. As long as Section 132 remains canonized, then Joseph’s version of polygamy was, by definition, sanctioned by God. This is why someone is going to get into trouble declaring Joseph’s actions morally wrong.
I would add to your argument that the original D&C 101 on monogamy also specifically forbade polygamy. It was removed when it became trumped by D&C 132. So which was doctrine and/or canonized. Our system of canonization is completely up in the air now as Church leaders can change verbiage seemingly at will with every new copy of the scriptures.
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/statement-on-marriage-circa-august-1835
“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”
Original D&C 101
Tom – Oliver Cowdery’s 1835 Statement of Belief on marriage (old Sect. 101) is going to be trumped by an official revelation to Joseph Smith (Sect. 132) any day of the week. Besides, the Book of Mormon actually does support monogamy as God’s ideal…. except when God commands otherwise. Early church leaders did not see any inconsistency by replacing 101 with 132 because of the exception cited in the Book of Mormon. Too many conversations with church historians have taught me that this argument is futile.
Next poll should ask how many of us believe that polygamy (as outlined in DC132) is wrong now, was wrong then, and will be wrong in the future, yet still believe in the restoration. I can’t accept polygyny as fair without polyandry being fair also…yet entering into that territory ratchets up the ick factor so far that I’m not interested in exploring it.
Reading this and all the comments, some of them quite meaty and thoughtful, has taken all my blogging time. I can see why some people leave the church over this, but I haven’t, though my once innocent enthusiasm has taken a beating. I’m interested in looking at why and how we stay. I’d also like to explore the implications of viewing our leadership as fundamentally flawed, and what that does to current practice. (Actually, I’d like to see hawkgrrrl explore it.)
This OP would make a terrific lesson outline in that alternate universe where we actually discuss these things in church.
I’ve already stated my personal views on Mormon polygamy elsewhere. I will say that my bishop couldn’t understand how someone like me with such a grasp of the OT could have a problem with polygamy. My husband complimented me on not punching him.
I would like to let the dead rest in peace. But the living matter, too. Until the church makes a clear, unambiguous statement that we do not- and will not – practice polygamy in mortality again, there is no peace.
Ellen, and until we quit practicing polygamy in our temple sealings and leave it for the Lord to sort out later. We say we are against polygamy but we currently practice it in our eternal sealings, it’s clearly still a part of our beliefs.
Ellen (42) – “Until the church makes a clear, unambiguous statement that we do not- and will not – practice polygamy in mortality again, there is no peace.”
Cause it went so well when the Church made clear, unambiguous statements on how blacks would never get the Priesthood until the whites were done.
Oh wait, you only want clear statements on things you agree on?
And yet it was canonized at one point and was the canonized law while Joseph and others practiced polygamy in secret. My point is we have an inconsistent method of canonizing and de-canonizing scripture. Oaks is on record calling certain chapters and book in the Old Testament scriptural rubbish. We depend heavily on the interpretation of scripture far more than actual words of scripture. As a missionary, I used to criticize other faiths for cherry picking scriptures and interpreting them however they want. Pot meet kettle.
Mh,
“If this really is a rogue stake president, a GA may tell the SP to back off, hoping that the bad publicity will go away.’
It does seem like overkill here. I did see parts of a letter somewhere, but still not sure we have the whole story yet…
Mary Ann,
“I am teaching Primary sharing time…”
Good analogy. Although, I think it is particularly useful to show why time and place matter. It saddens me to think that, because decorum demands that we self-censor while teaching a lesson in church, we must bottle up true thoughts and feelings everywhere.
“This is why someone is going to get into trouble declaring Joseph’s actions morally wrong.”
I agree completely. In the Church, we are free to believe as we choose (assuming you don’t need a temple recommend) but we must not speak opinions that stray from the faithful line that implies infallibility.
Just venting. The constant, egg-shell-walking diplomacy that our religion requires is exhausting.
Frank – #44 – I’m “just sayin'” that if you want modern women and girls to stay in or join a church with a polygamous past – a past that has always been there, but is now out in high def on the internet – you probably need to reassure them that it really is in the past.
It doesn’t matter if section 132 is canonized or not. It doesn’t matter if Joseph Smith is considered a prophet or not. The fact is Joseph Smith used polygamy and the story of the angel with the flaming sword to coerce women into giving him sexual favors with him. It’s stupid that this person is getting disiplined for speaking agianst a great evil.
It doesn’t matter if section 132 was canonized. It doesn’t matter if Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet. Using section 132 and telling women that an angel with a sword will kill him to coerce women to marrying him is wrong and is a caratcharistic of a sexual predator.
My post disappeared from here. It was on topic, and I didn’t swear or anything.
Lindsay, I am heartsick for you. I am so sorry this is happening. It shouldn’t be. Your family will be in my prayers.
Abram, I LOVE that it showed up again so I could give it thumbs up again. I wish I could endorse them both a dozen times.
“Oaks is on record calling certain chapters and book in the Old Testament scriptural rubbish.”
Tom, I’d love a reference to view here. I think this could be a VERY interesting post topic.
First of all, I have to say I sure do miss President Hinckley. I love how his answers rolled out so nicely. Granted people parse the answer he gave on the couplet, but for an on the spot interview, I still think he did well.
Second,
I think if you belong to a church that says these works are canon and you make public statements that the canon is false doctrine, you set yourself up for a difficult position. Don’t get me wrong, I think the members of the church need further light and knowledge from our prophets on the subjects addressed in section 132. I disagree with Nate in #12 that decanonizing it is unthinkable. Joseph Smith effectively decanonized the OT Book of Song of Solomon, though it has not officially been removed from the canon.
Third,
if we cannot change the section itself, then perhaps we can change the way we interpret it. Perhaps a few inspired edits could be made, similar to the edits made in the Book of Mormon, that reflect that while the Saints at that time lived those principles as eternal principles, they were, with later light and knowledge, not deemed eternal when understood in a greater context. Perhaps the wording of Emma being destroyed could be viewed as a spiritual destruction rather than a physical destruction. (Whether you view Emma’s position of meriting spiritual destruction because of disobedience is another debate, and I understand that most people commenting here are likely to debate that her position did not).
Fourth,
I dislike the entire Law of Sarah justification because it reflects a position that came into being because Sarah was jealous and did not trust in the Lord in her barrenness. Thus we deal with polygamy doctrinally because of unrighteousness. One unrighteous action was remedied with another, though according to Jacob 2:30 states that the Lord has the option of commanding polygamy at his will to raise up seed.
Again, I am not opposed to large portions of D&C 132 being rewritten or removed. In the second Work and the Glory movie, the character of Parley Pratt says (regarding Zion’s Camp) “the Lord invoketh and the Lord revoketh.” I agree that current Prophet trumps previous prophets. I hope that the blogger described can reconcile his feelings about this section with the priesthood leaders that have scrutinized his statement. I think he could serve others with greater effectiveness by writing about doctrinal postulations that suggest a paradigm shift, a la Taylor Petrey’s essay “Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology.” Also, could Robert Kirby be disciplined for his recent statements as they reflect (though tongue in cheek) unwillingness to consecrate all things?
Boyd K. Packer, in Conference Report, Mar.–Apr. 1990
The Doctrine and Covenants is described as “the book that will never be closed”. Others have pointed out that it has been a long time since the D&C canon was opened, but Elder Packer is still with us, so maybe the belief that it is not absolutely closed exists in the FP/Q12.
What does a proportional response to leadership roulette look like?
And is this an instance in which it’s called for?
My sense, post Prop 8, after recognizing the names of the wives of former mission companions on the rolls of financial supporters, is that the most effective way to end misguided mormon campaigns is to raise the stakes to include the risk of negative consequences that extend beyond the insular world of mormondom and leak into the professional and public sphere.
My other sense is that, if calling off the dogs is the objective, it requires flipping power disparities in such a way as to turn them into advantages. For example, if the abusive institution convenes a local panel that typically numbers 15:1 weighted in favor of the accusers, that’s a ready-made opening for the sort of mild-mannered mayhem that tends to persuade would-be panelists to balk at ramped-up social costs.
MDearest: “I’m interested in looking at why and how we stay. I’d also like to explore the implications of viewing our leadership as fundamentally flawed, and what that does to current practice. (Actually, I’d like to see hawkgrrrl explore it.)” Noted. We’ll see.
“Maybe this will make better sense. If I am teaching Primary sharing time and I start off with ‘Nephi was a murderer, a liar, and a thief,’ then I can expect phone calls from parents and probably a meeting with the bishop. Did Nephi kill an unarmed man? Definitely. Did Nephi impersonate said man? Definitely. Did Nephi obtain this man’s possessions without permission? Definitely. ”
—
Definitely!
Why do you want to sugar coat that?
“Ken, I think you believe sustaining church leaders, right or wrong, is the 14th article of faith. But funny that it is not.”
It wouldn’t matter as some would criticize this article of faith if it were adopted.
“Is this really a requirement?…..”
Yes it is. Just try getting through a baptismal interview saying NO to “Do you believe Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God?” or NO to “Do you Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ…..?” You would not be allowed to be baptized.
Look, we all fall short of the glory of God and all of us have our flaws. Along these lines, any disobedience or rejection of any of the questions that are required to gain entrance into the church could prompt a disciplinary council.
The problem with criticism and the future self of apostasy is that they are 100 percent attitude. In contrast, if I go and see a Bishop about any non felony sin of shame (Chasity, chemical abuse, shoplifting, etc..) with a broken heart and contrite spirit, they will do everything possible (in most cases) to help me through the issues. However, it may not go well if I am defiant and arrogant; and, criticism/apostasy is defined as defiance and arrogance.
Ken, in seriousness, I do wonder if this criticism would be perceived differently if a woman said it rather than a man (like the OP’s author – the one under fire). Women have far more to lose from polygamy whereas men are its theoretical beneficiaries. I tend to think it’s more unsavory to excommunicate a woman who is in a position to find polygamy very personally painful. A man’s rejection of it is more intellectual and theoretical perhaps.
Ken,
In other words the question isn’t one of principle or what is right, it is a question of obeying and being submissive to your immediate priesthood leader. Mountain Meadow Massacre here we come!
I think D&C 121 needs to play a role here. Priesthood authority is withdrawn when asked to do something wrong. You have no obligation to follow in error. Whether that means killing a child of 8 or refusing to believe/promote or stand idly by while racist doctrine is taught or speaking your conscious about polygamy.
The anonymous church essays set us back 2 generations. The Law of Sarah? Please. It contradicts about every basic gospel principle. Coercion of a supposedly “co-equal” spouse? All the signs are there that we should be incredibly suspicious of what went on with polygamy. Its fruits were bitter. And its not like there aren’t credible non-revelatory sources from whence the idea came. A significant number of the other utopian groups were experimenting with polygamy/polyandry and other forms of sexual practices. Its not like JS had to look very far to get the idea in his head.
This to me is a case where our inability to even consider the possibility that Joseph and Brigham got something wrong is more important than the actual spiritual lives of Mormon women. I don’t think most Mormons would bat an eye if our sitting prophet followed up on Hinkley and declared polygamy a doctrinal mistake. Like blacks and the priesthood I would imagine women pulling over to the side of the road and weeping in joy (and many men too).
“theoretical beneficiaries”
Exactly. I would find it personally painful to have multiple wives. No benefit in my view.
Ok, I’ll admit it, I watched the final episode of the Bachelor with my wife. Society doesn’t seem to have a problem with one man dating (and having sex with) multiple women at the same time, or vise versa. So why do they have an issue with polygamy?
Let’s be further honest,and perhaps it was just the look of the day, but these women weren’t exactly sex symbols. In other words, I can’t really see sex as the motivation. And this is the only thing I could see motivating most modern men to practice polygamy. They surely wouldn’t do it for increased conversation. And, sex is the ‘ick’ factor prompting most criticism in our day. If that was the motivation, why even get married?
Again, to me we are not seeing all of the salient information. We are judging this issue based on our modern culture and our perception of what it was like,instead of what it was to these people.
Although there are many accounts of the pain these women experienced as their husbands increased the number of wives . . .
It’s all rationalization regardless of the side you’re on. The truth is the church currently lacks true prophetic leadership and so it’s members are left to this type of pharsical debate.
“Although there are many accounts of the pain these women experienced as their husbands increased the number of wives”
Absolutely.
My great, great grandfather told his first wife he was instructed to take a new wife and she absolutely freaked out as recorded in her journal. She threatened to kill my great, great grand mother. It was brutal.
hawkgirl,
So true. Not only in emotional and spiritual pain but often pure physical deprivation and poverty. Its all so, so sad as well as a testament to the resilience and strength of the human character. I always raise an eyebrow at arguments about how polygamy must have been ok because some women managed to tolerate it. Many humans it turns out can tolerate a whole lot of crap and adapt. Doesn’t make it right.
I think we could repudiate polygamy doctrinally without disrespecting the sacrifice of those saints.
Ken – #63
“We are judging this issue based on our modern culture and our perception of what it was like, instead of what it was to these people.”
I think that would be a fair criticism if we were merely “judging” or “imposing” our outlook onto past events. What is stirring things up is the church’s refusal to put any real distance between us. We could be them at any moment the way the doctrine is written now. There’s all this, “get a life” stuff, “that was over a hundred years ago,” etc. So the church would be willing to say that it’ll never happen again??? Well, no….
This is just another example of why the church needs to get out of the business of punishing people for having opinions.
I have always had the impression that polygamy was hard on just about everyone. I suppose there were some men who thought they were in the Garden of Eden and some women who appreciated the division of labor and the security. But I am not sure many would be recommending it as a lifestyle from the grave….
Respect for our past can be acheived by acknowledging that they honestly believed that God commanded them to practice polygamy, and they were trying to follow this in good conscience.
Today we have greater light and knowledge and we understand that God did not command polygamy. Come clean, own up to the mistakes of the past. Decanonize D&C 132, there is precedent for making changes to the D&C look at the lectures on faith or many other changes made in prior versions. We don’t have to keep this section as inspired scripture to honor our ancestors.
#71 – since D&C 132 establishes not just polygamy but confirms the concepts of “temple marriage”, your proposal to de-canonize is absurd in light of one of the fundamental of LDS doctrine. Back to Gospel Doctrine with you.
The only ‘de-canonizaton’ I’ve ever heard of is for ‘Song of Solomon’, wherein the old boy was definitely deeply infatuated. Bruce R. McConkie made note of it, and the Inspired Version as printed by the CoC doesn’t have it, however, the Church uses the KJV and carries forth with it anyway.
“However, it may not go well if I am defiant and arrogant; and, criticism/apostasy is defined as defiance and arrogance.”
Actually this should be called insubordination, not apostasy. They are not the same thing. Should insubordination be grounds for excommunication? Well, I can see why some people think so, but I’m not sure I agree.
I think there would be a significant benefit to revisiting the language of D&C 132 and de-tangling “temple marriage” from “plural marriage” and polygamy. This would add a lot of clarity and distance the Church further from a very questionable practice.
As far as de-canonization, D&C 101 was removed from the scriptures as well as the Lectures on Faith and I haven’t spent a lot of time researching the subject. I know many of the revelations in D&C also have undergone extensive editing over time.
hope_for_things wrote: Today we have greater light and knowledge and we understand that God did not command polygamy.
We do? I strongly doubt this statement, please provide support for this assertion.
Not knowing any of the FB discussions that Hawk alludes to or any of the leaders involved, and therefore having nothing to go on but the text of the post itself, I would posit that the reason the leaders objected was because of tone. There’s a big difference between raising questions and declaring answers. With something like polygamy, you can say a number of things:
1. I don’t understand how…
2. It’s hard for me to accept…
3. If was still done today, I couldn’t be a member of the church…
4. I cannot accept {xyx} as being inspired doctrine…
5. {xyz} is clearly not inspired and contrary to what God wants
Each of these statements reflect a subtly different state of mind. I think one can make any of the first 4 statements without any real risk of church discipline, but once you’ve reached the fifth, you’re going to be found working contrary to the leaders, and by extension, mission, of the church. Once you’ve gotten to the point where you declare what God wants, and it’s contrary to church doctrine/teachings/interpretation of scripture, you’ve put yourself over the fuzzy boundary, which, from the perspective of church leaders, separates “us” and “them”.
I don’t think this is about polygamy, per se. I’d be very surprised if you’d be able to find any GAs who would claim they had all the answers to the questions surrounding polygamy. I suspect many of them privately express sentiment 1 and perhaps even 2.
#73 – I shudder at the thought of any member being considered a “subordinate” and therefore can possibly be guilty of “insubordination”. Try being underway in a nuclear boat (more specifically, an SSBN) where there are two that you pay homage to: God and the Skipper, and on his boat, they are one and the same! And God help you if you piss off the Chief of the Boat, even if you outrank him! We may sing “Onward Christian Soldiers”, but we are NOT military, for which I am thankful!
Contrary to what you may have seen in “Crimson Tide” (I nearly walked out on it when I saw it as being both utterly farcical and a complete misrepresentation of the ‘Silent Service’), though, any good Skipper is VERY much a “people” person. If he ever evinces any wrath, it’s usually saved for the XO and/or the division heads (“Stuff” rolls downhill…).
Fortunately, the business of the Church doesn’t involve driving a nuclear-powered submarine with 240 W88 thermonuclear warheads mounted aboard 24 Trident D5 missiles, so there’s room for ‘dissent’. What ultimately constitutes greater harm, unbridled mayhem with thermonuclear weaponry or ‘carefully leading the souls of men to hell’ (paraphrasing Alma) is for another thread.
What MH terms ‘insubordination’ in the Church ought to be ‘grounds’ for INSTRUCTION, and patience, not a knee-jerk reflex reaction with a disciplinary council.
#72 Douglas – The only ‘de-canonizaton’ I’ve ever heard of is for ‘Song of Solomon’, wherein the old boy was definitely deeply infatuated.
Lectures on Faith is the largest example of this. Canonized in 1835 and de-canonized in 1921. They removed the “doctrine” of the D&C. Also, multiple changes the 1835 version essentially changed doctrines from the earlier BoC in 1833. The section (used to be 101) on monogamy was canon in 1835, and was removed in 1876 when section 132 was added. Other examples include significant doctrinal alterations to the BoM. The bible has a long history of adding and removing books as well.
Joseph even said the apocrypha contains inspiration and encouraged us to use our discernment. I’m using my discernment here, and stating that polygamy wasn’t inspired by God.
#75 Howard
The greater light and knowledge we have today is a more clear understanding of the negative effects of polygamy on our church and on society at large. We have a greater understanding of family structures that are unhealthy, discriminatory and abusive. We have greater sensitivity to equal rights for women (more change is needed though). All of these understandings constitute further light and knowledge. Off times light and knowledge comes from sources outside our current priesthood leadership. We should be humble enough to accept the truth, regardless of which source the truth comes from.
Well hope_for_things I like the spirit and sentiment of you reply but I believe it to be short sighted and not self evduent in that it assumes that people cannot become more than they currently are through the multi generational refinement plural marriage for both genders.
Too much of Section 132 is central to Mormon doctrine to simply decanonize the whole thing. One alternative would be to simply stop after verse 50. That leaves in the justification of OT polygamy, but omits the discussion of post-restoration polygamy (although I would retain those verses in a footnote, which would not be part of the canon). A second alternative would be to include only verses 4-27 and 40-50. That would cover everything important to us today without any mention of polygamy.
Well, maybe the church could get away with decannonization of parts of D&C132 if they made a whole bunch of changes all at the same time, maybe adding some new sections, taking a few away, doing some reordering, like getting a new version of the hymn book. It would look like a new edition that was more “historically accurate” but really was more sensible to modern views.
Still, that seems like pie in the sky. Changes to the D&C happened long ago before correlation. Correlation is built upon the premise of scriptural infallibility, at least from the modern scriptures, “the most correct Book,” etc.
But wouldn’t it be nice if the church canonized David Whitmer’s alleged statement of Joseph Smith: “Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil.”
Quite honestly, I want to feel like I live in living Church with new and more refined revelation. The only substantial addition to scripture in my lifetime was Declaration 2 that was two decades behind the “world”. With some refinement, I think the Proclamation could be incorporated into D&C. Like, maybe consult with some Sister GAs before publishing. But the idea of the prophet exercising his authority to do prophet like things is something the Church would welcome.
Sooo are we saying that Joseph SMith made a false prophecy?
I’m willing to. And I’m willing to say that the current First Presidency is knowingly permitting it to persist.
Kullervo, I know you’ve been missing from the blog for a while, but this week it seems you’re trolling a bit more than normal. You might want to read my previous comment about biblical prophets taking God’s name in vain, but let me copy the gist of it here in the midst of false prophecy.
So I find Joseph in a bit of company with biblical prophets. Furthermore, I stated previously in comment 30
I’d love to hear your take on some of these biblical issues, rather than piling on Joseph (which it seems you relish doing lately.) But maybe that should be the subject of another post, instead of threadjacking this one. Let me know if you’d like me to create a post on false prophets/immorality of the Bible.
Well, there’s no question from Scripture that even the prophets were pretty regularly moral disasters. But I’m not asking whether Joseph Smith had moral failings. I’m asking whether he made a false prophecy in the name of the Lord, because that has massive Biblical implications.
If your answer is “well, so what, because I think all the Old Testament prophets made false prophecies too,” meaning that you are admitting that the Bible itself contains bona fide false prophecy, then obviously the discussion about whether or not Joseph Smith was a false prophet is a non-starter between us, because our view of scripture is so radically different.
So, not to threadjack, but at least as between you and me, the conversation would be about what, if not the Bible, is the final authority, and what are the implications for that.
But then again, you’re not the only one reading the thread.
I’m really not just trolling though: we have person after person here saying Joseph Smith made a false prophecy. And the warnings in scripture against doing that (and to the people that do)–even if they only make one false prophecy–are pretty heavy. And frankly, I’d like to highlight that.
(And I would like to highlight that because Joseph Smith is in fact a false prophet and Mormonism is in fact a false gospel and destructive heresy. I’m not concealing my position or my intentions.)
Ok, Kullervo, I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion, so I will create a new post topic dealing with, (1) did biblical prophets have moral failings, (2) did biblical prophets issue false revelation, (3) is the Bible the final authority, and (4) what are the implications?
I suspect that I will have lots of people disagree with me, both from the orthodox Mormon side, but as well as the evangelical side, but I think it will be an interesting discussion. I think far too many evangelicals (as well as Mormons) are guilty of ignoring unpleasant scriptures. In fact, Kullervo, when I do make this future post, I wouldn’t mind you inviting some evangelicals to the conversation, if you don’t mind. I think the conversation will be rather interesting if we limit this to “the Bible” and leave Mormonism out altogether. Are you game?
Hmm, I am totally game, but at the same time, I’m actually in the middle of tax season right now and am afraid I will either (1) neglect the discussion because of my workload or (2) neglect my workload because the discussion will be way more interesting.
Ok, that works for me. I will plan on after April 15 then. I have some other posts in mind for the next few weeks anyway, so that’s actually good to know. I hope you can come back then, and bring your evangelical friends.
By the way Kullervo, could I email you to ask your biggest concerns about why you believe JS is a false prophet?
Of course!
re #57:
“that’s a ready-made opening for the sort of mild-mannered mayhem that tends to persuade would-be panelists to balk at ramped-up social costs”
Is this a proposal to shame volunteers who agree to serve in the offices of the local wards, branches and stakes? I would be afraid to see the leadership we are left with in the hands of those that stay after those with more sympathies with the individuals decide they no longer want to be the social cost of participating.
#63 Ken
You just couldn’t handle multiple wives, too painful…for you.
Don’t watch the bachelor, never have, never will. I despise the practice of polygamy and likewise do not believe it was inspired, what does the bachelor have to do with that, lots of people are having sex in “non-moral” ways or at least against the ways I choose to live, what does that have to do with this current discussion on polygamy past/present amongst the LDS? Unless you were directing that comment outside the LDS community.
Your last comment and question is bizarre (to me), these people weren’t that attractive so sex wasn’t the motivation? Is that what you are saying, I’m confused because that is what I am reading and interpreting it to mean. If that is you meant by your comment, who said the problem is with the sexual appetites and/or attractiveness of the women/men involved in polygamy? My personal issue is the lack of fidelity that is created in a marriage when it isn’t exclusive in ALL things. Hopes, fears, shared burdens..”One man, one woman, two friends and two true lovers, somehow we’ll help EACH OTHER through the hard times” (ABBA I couldn’t help myself), so that is why I am married in a monogamous marriage, if that is not what I am getting in the next life shouldn’t I have full informed consent on that?
And if that means I become a ministering angel in the next life because I won’t practice polygamy, then good, it sounds more like Christ anyway…heaven will have slaves…makes perfect sense!
Also for more on the sexual appetites and experiences of the average Mormon polygamist woman in 1840-1920-ish read this
http://www.amazon.com/Polygamous-Wives-Writing-Club-Diaries/dp/019934650X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426129406&sr=8-1&keywords=wives+writing+club
…it reads like a modern fundamentalists group, only the names and dates are different, and that’s in the dustbins of OUR history.
“Is this a proposal to shame volunteers who agree to serve in the offices of the local wards, branches and stakes?”
No, it’s a proposal to launch a public inquiry into why anyone would be silly enough to spend time away from family and friends in order to sit in judgment of a blogger guilty of the heinous crime of sharing his thoughts about his religion on his personal blog.
Hopefully, the organization’s leadership will come to its senses and recognize the unfair burden it places on its officers when it tasks them with such zany undertakings.
I’m proposing less hand-wringing and more focused opposition research as the better response to these nutty tribunals.
B,
It really isn’t that hard to grasp.
I find it hard being married to one woman and multiple wives would be harder. Harder financially and emotionally.
The point I was making is that dating several women during the same time period and having sex with these women (as illustrated in shows like the bachelor) Is fairly common in today’s society. If sex was the main motivation for polygamy, as some have implied, it would be better to never get married as it would limit the pool of potential sex partners. Most desirable women are seeking a monogomous relationship and would be really turned off by the concept of sharing thier husband with other women sexually. However, they don’t seem to be to bothered (as in the bachelor) with their boyfriend having sex with other women.
With this said, I think other factors motivated the practice of polygamy.
Ken,
I don’t buy that argument at all because you are supposing that the sexual opportunity landscape of the mid 1800s is in anyway represents today’s. Its not like JS was wandering around 2000s NYC. A better approach would be to look at similar communities in that time period. What do we find? Lots of experimentation with polygamy, polyandry etc. from other utopian communities that were popping up all over the frontier – many of them religiously motivated.
In my personal view the sex is the least hurtful thing about polygamy. What is the problem is structural inequality that the system creates where the vast majority of the negative consequences fall on the women. JS wasn’t around very long once he started experimenting with plural marriage. It was rather new in practice at least. It was mixed up with a whole lot of ideas, but really he died before anything really was solidified. I think Mormons assume way to much cohesion within the mind of JS, as if there is some huge big grand, completely internally consistent cosmology running around in there. But any study of our history shows in excrutiating detail the exact opposite. We give lip service to “line upon line” or “through a glass darkly” but few of us seem to believe it. We hold onto this idea that the ideas all sprung fully formed out of his head and it was just that he was only showing pieces. But all the history shows *evolving* ideas and understanding. Which honestly I think we should be cool with.
Brigham picked up these naescant ideas on sealing and polygamy and ran with them. He created the incredibly noxious kingdom building theology where more wives meant more glory. Any attempt to deny such a theology is simply disingenuous. He taught it unceasingly, clearly and emphatically for decades. He intertwined his adam god doctrine with it. We simply can’t say we have any idea what would have happened to the development of the ideas of polygamy had joseph survived. To me it seemed like he was tilting more toward a “free love” style sealing thing and the insanely hierarchical version Brigham ultimately shapes. There are some indications, though slight, that Joseph might have been regretting his experiment. Maybe he would have stopped it.
It definitely wasn’t just about sex, but it is about power and control. Polygamy anywhere it has been practices has ALWAYS been about power and control of those who get to give and take women and most importantly it is about power and control OVER women. Mormons were no exception. The Law of Sarah anyone?
Oh and cry me freaking river over how “hard” it must be to have “multiple” wives to “please” and take care of. Sure but it is NOTHING compared to the difficulty on the other side of that equation. NOTHING. Its like my kid whining about how “hard” they have it going to school while other kids there age our risking their lives in virtual slavery cutting the cocoa that goes in our hot chocolate. The comparisons is so disproportionate as to be offensive.
Sorry let me take one thing back. Polygamy was hard on men, especially the men who had to give control of their sexual and intimate lives to the hierarchy. The major problem with polygamy is at its heart always seems to turn into the coercion of those who end up in hierarchical control. Polygamy is just a bad, bad experiment. it always has been and it always will be.
#98 rah, that was a brilliant analysis of polygamy, Joseph and Brigham. You illuminated a number of profound points I had never considered, importantly, what would it have become had Joseph lived to see the consequences.
I am far more inclined to give him a break in consideration of that. It’s a huge plus toward my personal reconciliation with the church. But, OTOH, if I let Joseph off the hook for the aborted mission caused by his premature death, I have to ask where Heavenly Father and his revelation was when Brigham took LDS polygamy to its destructive end. Where was his revelation when saints splintered off into groups that were doomed to dwindle and the FLDS that perpetuates the abomination of polygamy and the resulting child neglect and abuse to this day?
Complicates my personal journey but adds so much historical clarity that was missing.
PS #99 was killer too.
I have suspicions for anyone who sets himself up as a prophet. They are always self serving. God can appear and tell me he/she is a prophet. Anyone can make up a story. In J.S. Case his selfish need for polygamy is transparent and his story’s as told in the BOM and BOA do not hold up under scientific scrutiny. I say this about any self proclaimed prophet.
Raj,
“It definitely wasn’t just about sex, it was about power and control ”
Interestingly, I think we see more eye to eye than your vent would suggest. As I indicated in a prior post, there would be a temptation for a king like complex.
I’m not crying about anything, I just have no interest in having multiple women as wives.
#78 (hope_for_things) wrote: “Joseph even said the apocrypha contains inspiration and encouraged us to use our discernment. I’m using my discernment here, and stating that polygamy wasn’t inspired by God.”. (Buzzer!) You’re using your own OPINION, which is that you can pick and choose, cafeteria style, what is ‘inspired’ versus what isn’t. The ‘trouble’ with rescinding D&C 132 is it gives us the basis for eternal marriage, which by default and overwhelming majority has been for a monogamous union of one man and one woman. The Official Dec #1 sufficed to take away the further practice of polygamy (letting attrition and a ‘gentleman’s understanding’ to not bother the extant polygamous unions deal with the contemporary situation), but it would NOT have done anything about the fact that it did happen, for better or worse.
The Church did NOT consider the “Lectures on Faith” as scripture in the same fashion as the rest of the D&C but it was felt profitable to include them until 1921. The D&C themselves weren’t subdivided into chapters and verses until 1876, so consider it a “draft” and then “draft final” of a developing Church.
The Church did NOT consider the “Lectures on Faith” as scripture in the same fashion as the rest of the D&C but it was felt profitable to include them until 1921. The D&C themselves weren’t subdivided into chapters and verses until 1876, so consider it a “draft” and then “draft final” of a developing Church.
Douglas, your ignorance of church history is showing again. I highly doubt that Brigham Young considered the D&C from 1835-1876 a “Draft” even if you find the idea appealing. Talk about picking and choosing what to believe cafeteria style. Pot, meet kettle.
“The Church did NOT consider the ‘Lectures on Faith’ as scripture in the same fashion as the rest of the D&C but it was felt profitable to include them until 1921.”
I have to agree with Mormon Heretic. There’s a big difference between (a) the Church deciding in 1921 that (at that time) it did not regard the Lectures on Faith to be scripture, and (b) your insinuation that the Church never considered the Lectures to be part of the cannon.
But we can’t fault you. That’s how Joseph Fielding Smith spun the decision to take them out.
And it’s easy to see why the Lectures are a problem. When you consider them along with the earlier 2 versions of the First Vision and previous editions of the Book of Mormon, it looks like Joseph originally founded Mormonism on the Trinity, and then modalism, before settling on his final telling of the First Vision.
“I just have no interest in having multiple women as wives.” Why did “women” sound like a caveat when I read that? JK
Hawk,
Jk….Hey, I did watch the final episode of the bachelor and every episode of downtown abbey with my wife.
#105 and #106 – now I know how Jimmy Durante felt when he would rue, “I’m surrounded by incompetents!”. Ah, I’m just employing hyperbole. Actually, I’m dealing with two brethren who have very PECULIAR (but as you would THIS TIME rightly point out, it’s a discussion between pot and kettle) views on Church history and doctrine.
I take it NEITHER of you have worked in the Environmental field, dealing with State and Federal (not JUST the EPA) regulatory agencies. We routinely work with drafts and draft finals, without the at times necessary wrangling we’d never get out a final product! My comparison of the evolution of the Doctrine and Covenants from the 1835 to the 1876, then finally the 1921 version which for all practical purposes is extant today (at least as the mainline LDS Church is concerned) is quite on target, considering the resources that the Church had available, especially in religious scholarship. That doesn’t mean that I demean the Brethren of the day…rather, I laud them greatly, b/c they brought for a great work under far greater constraints than most have today. In today’s world where NOW everything is but a few mouse clicks away, we’re downright spoiled.
A similar anecdote, one a bit more light-hearted, is how the French, whom prior to WWII were considered to have the best tanks in the world (and we all know how THAT turned out, methinks the Parisian guy in tears as the Germans march down the Champs-Elysee in that famous photo had put all his francs in Renault stock once they’d won the contract for the Char B1). Come “Le Liberation”, after they got through shoot les collaborateurs and shaving THE HEADS of their women that had dared consort with Les Boches, they got what little heavy industry that either hadn’t been bombed into the Stone Age courtesy of Gen. LeMay or hauled off by the “Jerrys”, and proceeded to design a new French battle tank, adopting the existing Char B1 chassis and designing a turret with a 90mm gun much like some kid would whittle something out of soap. Considering that it was a challenge to even find paper and pencils, that they got anything out of the factory, regardless of what a ridiculous pile of “Le Junque” it was, was a remarkable achievement. Fortunately the resurrected French Army had plenty of Shermans, and latter Pattons, to mount an armored force that please DeGaulle. The important benefit of producing what was otherwise a very forgettable tank was that it put their defense industry back to work. Later products, such as the AMX-13, AMX-30, and LeClerc, ‘sont toutes tres biens!’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARL_44
In a similar vein is much of what the early Brethren did. I challenge anyone to do what they did even with TODAY’s resources and environment, let alone what they had to put up with. I don’t profess that I’d have done anywhere near as well as they.
Smart people end up rich. Using the right tools for each investment category is key, for stock investments I use eSignal and for all my real estate investments I use Realbench (http://realbench.net). Later I will post the other tools I use for currency trading and capital investments for everyday people. For now go get RealBench (http://realbench.net) it is dirt cheap and sign up for the free trial of eSignal. Good luck fellows. Come back to wheatandtares.org for my other postings.