Not another polygamy thread! (sigh)

[prisonchaplain]

Sorry, but I've restarted my attempt to read the BoM, and am in the midst of Jacob. In the first two chapters, the writer repeatedly condemns the polygamy of David and Solomon. The opposition is stronger than anything modern critics of your church would lobby against these two great Jewish kings.

So, if the BoM--at least in Jacob, is against polygamy, does Joseph Smith explain how he came to see its restoration as acceptable, and, at least for a few, needful?

[pam]

This is what it says on lds.org.

The Bible indicates that Abraham, Jacob, and others of the Lord’s servants had multiple wives (see Genesis 16:1–3; 29:23–30; 30:4, 9; Judges 8:30; 1 Samuel 1:1–2). Joseph Smith asked God why He had permitted this practice and was told that God had commanded it for specific purposes. One reason given by the Lord for plural marriage is mentioned in the Book of Mormon: “If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall [have only one wife]” (Jacob 2:30; see also v. 27).

After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.

[prisonchaplain]

So...it was meant as a limited practice that one would only engage in if they sensed God drawing them into it?

[pam]

I'm not sure if the wording "sense God drawing them into it" would be absolutely correct. The way I understand it...it would be practiced if God commanded it.

[Misshalfway]

PC, Look at verse 30 in the second chapter or Jacob. The Lord answers that question.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

[Traveler]

Pam has done an excellent job of pointing out that man is to follow the command of the L-rd as expressed in Jacob 2:30. What may be missing from her wonderful explanation is the understanding and doctrine of covenant.

Those that covenant with the L-rd to be their king are obligated to do as he commands. We find reflections of such a covenant from the Old Testament where the L-rd commanded in the Law of Moses – “Thou shalt not kill”. We then see in later in Bible scriptures where the L-rd commanded that everyone in a certain place was to be killed – even the children and livestock. The point is that those that covenant are not to ever make the choice to kill but if the L-ord commands it they must do as the L-rd commands or they will suffer the consequences specified in the covenant.

Marriage is also a covenant with the L-rd. The covenant is that man may choose one wife and only one wife (ever) in the covenant – Jacob explains this very clearly. However, if the L-rd commands then man must also marry who the L-rd commands. Under this covenant man does not choose another wife but one is appointed as with Abraham and Jacob. Because King David and King Solomon took unto them other wives that were not appointed they committed a great sin with the L-rd and broke their marriage covenant which is by definition adultery.

My great grandfather wrote in his journal that many of the LDS of his day were breaking the covenant with the L-rd and taking wives unto themselves. He predicted or prophesied (however one wants to understand his journal) that because of the breaking of the covenant that the church would come under much condemnation for 3 to 4 generations (which is to about our day) for the breaking of the marriage covenant given by the L-rd. This appears to be the case and it appears that condemnation is becoming less and less as societies are turning away from marriage by covenant with G-d.

Perhaps as the time of Christ comes closer there will be a uniting of those that respect G-d and his covenant of marriage that also reject the foolishness of the world.

The Traveler

[NateHowe]

David and Solomon both took the command in the wrong direction, against the will of God. The Book of Mormon in no way condemns Abraham or Jacob, who participated in plural marriage as well.

[Fiannan]

I think there is something we all forget here and that is the term "moderation in all things". The Book of Mormon indicates that there were so many wives that perhaps they were neglected -- sexually, emotionally, etc. When David transgressed with a married woman Nathan condemned him but clearly indicated that greed was a factor here as he said God had blessed David with 6 wives (later the number of wives taken would be huge). So the issue is not really polygamy but rather reasonable modertion.

The Koran limits a man to four wives with good reason -- there are men who due to one factor or another would try to accumulate as many wives as possible -- which is of no benefit to the women if you are wife #50. If one big reason for polygamy is to raise up rightious children then a man can easily accomplish this with 4 or 5 or 6 women but if you have dozens of wives the overall fertility rate will actually decline.

[rameumptom]

The D&C 132 expands upon Jacob's condemnation of David and Solomon's polygamy. The reason they were condemned was because it led them to other sins. David committed adultery and murder; and Solomon committed idolatry and marriage outside of Israel.

[prisonchaplain]

All of these explanations are helpful--especially Traveler's mention of covenants. So, is the Church's understanding that God specifically commanded Joseph Smith, and those others in early church history, to take multiple wives? And, if so, was this an individual command that God gave to each one, or was it something general given to a specific group of leaders? (I'm betraying my ignorance here, but I've avoided this topic in the past, because I know that the facts are badly poisoned by polemics).

[rameumptom]

No one could take a second wife (or any other) without permission from the Prophet. With Joseph Smith, it was often a commandment given to others to take a second wife. Under Brigham Young, it was occasionally something that was mandated to an individual, but often was requested and considered by Brigham Young. But none occurred without the prophet's okay.

[Traveler]

All of these explanations are helpful--especially Traveler's mention of covenants. So, is the Church's understanding that God specifically commanded Joseph Smith, and those others in early church history, to take multiple wives? And, if so, was this an individual command that God gave to each one, or was it something general given to a specific group of leaders? (I'm betraying my ignorance here, but I've avoided this topic in the past, because I know that the facts are badly poisoned by polemics).

There were a lot of rather strange things that have happened in LDS Church history that were a result of misunderstandings and some results of outright rebellion. I would point out that such things are not out of the question with covenant peoples – even in ancient times. Some of the things that occurred with polygamy during the restoration are examples below.

. Being sealed or married by proxy to a person without that person’s knowledge and acceptance. It appears that many women and girls were “pushed” or “encouraged” by their parents into sealings or proxy marriages with important church leaders without the leaders knowing.

. Being sealed or married by proxy to a person after they had died. This is still allowed if the couple was married previously to the death but there were some in early LDS history that were sealed to persons of whom they never met.

. Being sealed for eternity but not being married for mortal life. This happened from time to time and should not have happened. I believe that several marriages attributed to Joseph Smith fall into this and the other previous categories.

According to my great grandfather the prime responsibility for a Melchizedek priesthood holder in marring another wife fell with the wives and could not properly take place without the “common” consent of all the previous wives. How this consent was carried out was not always done correctly or well understood. Many of the letters written by Paul were because ancient Saints did not properly understand and execute their covenants. It was not written because they were not believers of Christ. There were mistakes. It is one of the reasons that prophets are so important to the church – especially as times change and new challenges are faced.

It is also my understanding that all attempts at plural marriages that were done outside of the proper covenant are null and void in eternity regardless if they were plural marriages or not. I believe any needed corrections will be taken care of during the 1,000 years or “peace” and that is one of the reasons for it.

In summary – I believe that for the restoration of the covenant that plural marriage was restored but because of problems in living by the proper covenant that it was removed. (Shame on us – I have a great grandfather that understood and lived the covenant – I also have others that messed it up big time.) I believe that it will be restored again but it will not be in secret as with some apostate LDS groups and it will not be restored until we are ready to live it correctly by covenant.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Being sealed for eternity but not being married for mortal life. This happened from time to time and should not have happened.

Upon what do you base this judgment?

[Snow]

Sorry, but I've restarted my attempt to read the BoM, and am in the midst of Jacob. In the first two chapters, the writer repeatedly condemns the polygamy of David and Solomon. The opposition is stronger than anything modern critics of your church would lobby against these two great Jewish kings.

So, if the BoM--at least in Jacob, is against polygamy, does Joseph Smith explain how he came to see its restoration as acceptable, and, at least for a few, needful?

Ah - there's this explanation:

A Contradiction Between Jacob 2:24 and D&C 132:39

or

Joseph Smith could have been wrong about plural marriage.

or

The Book of Mormon could be wrong about plural marriage.

In a symposium I went to someone in the audience asked Richard Bushman (LDS historian and JS biographer) to explain JS and polygamy and he said he couldn't. No one knows JS better than Bushman and although he had some thoughts about it, he could not explain it.

[Traveler]

Upon what do you base this judgment?

Understanding of covenants.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Ah - there's this explanation:

A Contradiction Between Jacob 2:24 and D&C 132:39

or

Joseph Smith could have been wrong about plural marriage.

or

The Book of Mormon could be wrong about plural marriage.

In a symposium I went to someone in the audience asked Richard Bushman (LDS historian and JS biographer) to explain JS and polygamy and he said he couldn't. No one knows JS better than Bushman and although he had some thoughts about it, he could not explain it.

This helps some more...imho early LDS polygamy is one of those issues that provides fodder for your church's enemies, does little to shake the faith of the faithful, but does give investigators and perhaps some shaky converts pause to wonder...if Joseph Smith or the BoM erred on these things, is the restoration any more righteous than my old church?

[lindsayjane]

I have read so many of these polygamy arguments and I find them absolutely maddening. Am I the only one around here who really doesn't care about polygamy--past, present, or future? According to the scriptures, polygamy was ordained of God in the past at various times and places. Ok, that's simple enough. I don't have a problem with that--logically, emotionally, or otherwise. If it was commanded it was obviously for a good reason. I may not know the mind of God but I know enough not to doubt it.

Polygamy is NOT currently ordained by God. That's simple enough, as well. So we don't practice it now. We don't know all the reasons for that and that's ok. We don't know the answers to a lot of things, but we keep on trucking along with the knowledge we do have. This isn't any different. If it WERE commanded right now we would practice it or we would leave the church, just like any other difficult commandment. Just like the Word of Wisdom or chastity or tithing, it would be easier for some and more difficult for others. Some would endure no matter what and some wouldn't. That's just the simple fact of it. Consecration will likely be just as trying.

In truth, it's been pointed out that polygamy IS practiced today if you consider the ability of men to be sealed to more than one wife, even if he can't be legally married to them at the same time. So we're saying, "Yeah, it's ok if I have to share him in the next life as long as I get him to myself here." I just don't understand the logic in that. Did I just fracture my jealous bone, or something? I say, "If the Lord commands it then buy the house next door so you don't have to drive across town all the time. (And cause I don't want any input into how to decorate this house!)"

We're told polygamy will be ordained of God again some time in the future. Ok, that's also pretty straight forward. So we will have to deal with it again whether we like it or not. So I say let's just get used to the idea of it and stop freaking out about it. The practice has been a condition of humanity throughout history and, apparently, has been a condition of eternal beings throughout eternity. From what I gather about the peace and joy to be had in eternity, I'm guessing we will all come to find that this principle isn't as bad as most of us seem to think it is.

[Vort]

Being sealed for eternity but not being married for mortal life. This happened from time to time and should not have happened.

Upon what do you base this judgment?

Understanding of covenants.

So you believe your understanding of covenants to be greater than Joseph Smith's? Interesting.

I disagree.

[Fiannan]

No one could take a second wife (or any other) without permission from the Prophet. With Joseph Smith, it was often a commandment given to others to take a second wife. Under Brigham Young, it was occasionally something that was mandated to an individual, but often was requested and considered by Brigham Young. But none occurred without the prophet's okay.

I have heard that, and I have heard otherwise -- do you have any links that could be helpful on this one?

[mike_uk]

Polygamy is always going to be a big issue for the church and no amount of arguing is ever going to reach a position where it is understood or accepted by everyone, nothing at all. Many can accept it and many wont. Personally I will never accept it.

I will have to find the source but there were some plural marriages performed without authorisation from JS/BY which resulted in excommunication.

Edited August 12, 2008 by mike_uk

[Elphaba]

I have read so many of these polygamy arguments and I find them absolutely maddening.

I find it maddening when someone comes to a thread, reads it, and then finds the subject of the thread maddening. If it is “absolutely maddening,” which really sounds painful, I suggest you don’t read the thread. That’s how I get by.

Am I the only one around here who really doesn't care about polygamy--past, present, or future?

That depends on what you mean by “care”? It is not only a fascinating aspect of the Church's history, it is part the American West's history as well. I get it that you aren't as interested as I, but I promise you, it knocks my socks off to read about Emma and Eliza Roxy having it out on the stairs! (Go Emma!)

Polygamy is NOT currently ordained by God. That's simple enough, as well. So we don't practice it now. We don't know all the reasons for that and that's ok. We don't know the answers to a lot of things, but we keep on trucking along with the knowledge we do have. <snip> That's just the simple fact of it. Consecration will likely be just as trying.

Did you really just write a sentence with the words “trucking along.” in it? Wow, major déjà vu, CB buddy!

I just don't understand the logic in that. Did I just fracture my jealous bone, or something?

If it’s the one close to your funny bone, you’d have to ask a shrink that question. I can’t tell the difference between jealous and funny.

So I say let's just get used to the idea of it and stop freaking out about it.

Whose freaking out? Well, actually, I am.

That is, I am, if we can’t have “one more thread about polygamy.” Because to study the history of Mormonism without studying its polygamy is to study the American Revolution without Mel Gibson.

Okay, I’m being stupid, especially because I can’t stand Mel Gibson. But hopefully you get my point that SOME of us like to discuss polygamy, because it is an integral piece to the Mormon experience, maddening or otherwise.

I'm guessing we will all come to find that this principle isn't as bad as most of us seem to think it is.

My sister keeps insisting I am literally going to be her sister-wife in the next life.

Even though I adore my BIL, I want more choices!

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Elphaba,

If I understand LindsayJane she's looking at it from the apologist viewpoint. It IS maddening to have modern anti-Mormons use polygamy from 100+ years ago to hold over LDS heads today.

That being said, I also agree with you that it is a fascinating historical study. It wasn't easy for most to follow, at least at first. I believe Joseph Smith also struggled with it, even to the end, but knew that he had to obey God's command. Having an angel draw a sword on you for procrastination of a commandment (living plural marriage) is definitely something that would get a person's attention. And I would wager that most on this list would also definitely consider living in a plural marriage if we'd had that same experience.

I don't hold anything against Emma. She was an amazing woman, who had to bear amazing trials through her married years: Rejected by her father, watching her husband imprisoned several times (once for 6 months), being driven from place to place, seeing their best friends desert and become their enemies, not being able to be a witness of the gold plates, losing 6 of her 11 children, being commanded to accept plural marriage, feeling partially responsible for Joseph's death because she asked him to return from his plans to go West, seeing her husband's body being carted back to Nauvoo, and then being responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt left to her at his death; all of these things and more were quite remarkable for one woman to bear.

Rather than condemn plural marriage, ancient or modern, perhaps we would do better to spend our time studying the affects of it on the individual and community, and perhaps learn from both the good and bad it brought about.

[breeb]

Elphaba,

If I understand LindsayJane she's looking at it from the apologist viewpoint. It IS maddening to have modern anti-Mormons use polygamy from 100+ years ago to hold over LDS heads today.

That being said, I also agree with you that it is a fascinating historical study. It wasn't easy for most to follow, at least at first. I believe Joseph Smith also struggled with it, even to the end, but knew that he had to obey God's command. Having an angel draw a sword on you for procrastination of a commandment (living plural marriage) is definitely something that would get a person's attention. And I would wager that most on this list would also definitely consider living in a plural marriage if we'd had that same experience.

I don't hold anything against Emma. She was an amazing woman, who had to bear amazing trials through her married years: Rejected by her father, watching her husband imprisoned several times (once for 6 months), being driven from place to place, seeing their best friends desert and become their enemies, not being able to be a witness of the gold plates, losing 6 of her 11 children, being commanded to accept plural marriage, feeling partially responsible for Joseph's death because she asked him to return from his plans to go West, seeing her husband's body being carted back to Nauvoo, and then being responsible for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt left to her at his death; all of these things and more were quite remarkable for one woman to bear.

Rather than condemn plural marriage, ancient or modern, perhaps we would do better to spend our time studying the affects of it on the individual and community, and perhaps learn from both the good and bad it brought about.

Could you tell me where your knowledge of these events came from? My husband and I have resently become very interested in church history. We have resently become aware of somethings that happened with JS that we were unaware of (when he became ill and nearly died) and it has really peaked our interest. We're looking for good books that will help us. I know about Rough Stone Rolling and really want it, but did your knowlege come from any other books?

Thanks!

[mike_uk]

Could you tell me where your knowledge of these events came from? My husband and I have resently become very interested in church history. We have resently become aware of somethings that happened with JS that we were unaware of (when he became ill and nearly died) and it has really peaked our interest. We're looking for good books that will help us. I know about Rough Stone Rolling and really want it, but did your knowlege come from any other books?

Thanks!

You may also be interested in "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn M Brodie. It's a fantastic read.

Edited August 12, 2008 by mike_uk

[BenRaines]

From Wickipedia: "Although No Man Knows My History was a direct attack on many foundational Mormon beliefs about Joseph Smith, the LDS Church was slow to condemn the work even as the book went into a second printing. In 1946, The Improvement Era, the official periodical of the Church, said that many of the book's citations arose from doubtful sources and that the biography was "of no interest to Latter-day Saints who have correct knowledge of the history of Joseph Smith." The "Church News" section of the Deseret News provided a lengthy critique that acknowledged the biography's "fine literary style" and then denounced it as "a composite of all anti-Mormon books that have gone before."[22] BYU professor and LDS historian and apologist Hugh Nibley challenged Brodie in another booklet, No, Ma'am, That's Not History, asserting that Brodie had cited sources supportive only of her conclusions while conveniently ignoring others.[23] Brodie herself thought the Deseret News pamphlet "a well-written, clever piece of Mormon propaganda", but she dismissed the ultimately more popular No, Ma'am, That's Not History as "a flippant and shallow piece."