What would the church be like today if polygamy was never part of it's history?

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . since the main gripe of Joseph's polygamous explorations with the married ladies and other women would not have occurred.

I remember Professor Susan Rugh of BYU once saying something to the effect that Nauvoo's economy really wasn't sustainable over the long term--had little or no agricultural base to support it.

At any rate, New York became to hot to hold Joseph even without allegations of polygamy; and while it was a minor factor in Kirtland and Missouri it wasn't really the major issue. I doubt the Saints could have stayed in Nauvoo for long, even without polygamy. Between their voting practices, the power of the Nauvoo Legion, land speculation, and the relatively independent court system; I don't think their neighbors would have put up with them in the long run.

Besides, had the Saints stayed in Illinois/Iowa, what effect might the Civil War have had on them? As it was, our contributions were token and our people emerged from the ordeal practically unscathed.

While the idea that had Joseph Smith lived, the policy of racial exclusion would not have occurred is speculative, you must remember we are a speculative people.

President McKay's experience of praying for permission to lift the priesthood ban and receiving a direct "no" in response, would seem to indicate that the policy did indeed come from the Lord. Granted, it may have been the Lord allowing for the weakness of a people too consumed with pride to allow another race to exercise ecclesiastical authority over them. But I don't think even Joseph could have completely eradicated racism among the Saints.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

Has anyone who promulgates this vomit ever stopped to think of what the effect would be if people actually BELIEVED it? Do we really want a generation of men who honestly believe they are intrinsically inferior to the women they marry? Do we really want a generation of women who honestly believe they are married to inferior beings? We all probably know men and women like that; how would you like a whole church full of them?

Oh, I've never heard anyone try to claim this as doctrine (though I'm sure somebody somewhere has), usually the thinking is women tend to think of others more often, the priesthood is a call to serve so it helps the men serve thus developing spiritually and the like along those lines. *shrug*

Or are you talking about the sentiment in general? Me I don't have any problems with the whole, "My wife is my better half" type comments, you are right though, it can be taken to far. I remember in the MTC they seemed to try to drill it into us that the Sisters were better than us in practically every way. Got to the point I wanted to scream, "We know already! God made a mistake when he called the young men to service, he should have called the young women!" I think that was just overcompensation for those Elders who felt they were superior though.

[foreverafter]

Or sat in on many Elder's Quorum or High Priest's meetings, particularly the lessons on women and motherhood. At least in my experience if one sex is held as superior (generally speaking, and in the US) in the minds of church member's its women, not men. And as for people thinking men think the priesthood makes them better than women, my experience is the sentiment is that men need the priesthood so they have a shot of being equal to their spouses.

This is so true. For our Prophets & Leaders have said that women are born with an equal power & authority as the Priesthood because of their righteousness in the pre-existence. And men need to be worthy in this life to receive that same level of power & authority as women already have. According to Prophets like Pres. Hunter & Elder Faust women have a "Superior faith, commitment, morality & spirituality & more trust in the Lord than men usually do. Joseph Smith said that charity & benevolence come naturally to women. Now of course this is in generalities, sometimes it is the husband that is more righteous & sacrificing & faithful, but generally it's the wife. The history of the world shows, how men in all major societies have dominated, abused & relagated women to a secondary position for 6000 years. Why women put up with it for so long I can't figure out.

So men do need to be given something in this life (as Elder Cowley said in Gen. Conf.) to help them learn to be equal with righteous women. The Priesthood is an invitation to serve which helps men learn to put others 1st & develop the level of sacrifice & Christ-like love that women show, especially as they bear & nurture children.

Edited March 30, 2009 by foreverafter

[Moksha]

At any rate, New York became to hot to hold Joseph even without allegations of polygamy; and while it was a minor factor in Kirtland and Missouri it wasn't really the major issue. I doubt the Saints could have stayed in Nauvoo for long, even without polygamy. Between their voting practices, the power of the Nauvoo Legion, land speculation, and the relatively independent court system; I don't think their neighbors would have put up with them in the long run.

Well, at least the reasons for destroying the Nauvoo Expositor would have been absent, so there would not have been a reason to apprehend Joseph. You are right, that the Kirkland Bank scandal still hung over him, but that was some years back and he had avoided any legal prosecution on that charge.

Besides, had the Saints stayed in Illinois/Iowa, what effect might the Civil War have had on them? As it was, our contributions were token and our people emerged from the ordeal practically unscathed.

In this case, I am pretty sure the Church would have sided with the union. While they supported slavery in Utah, it was a nonessential part of their economy.

But I don't think even Joseph could have completely eradicated racism among the Saints.

Hard to make people be good. However, I think the majority would have followed Joseph's more tolerant and righteous example.

:)

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, at least the reasons for destroying the Nauvoo Expositor would have been absent, so there would not have been a reason to apprehend Joseph. You are right, that the Kirkland Bank scandal still hung over him, but that was some years back and he had avoided any legal prosecution on that charge.

I don't think the Expositor limited itself to charges of polygamy against Joseph. Haven't read it in a while, but my recollection is it also complained about Joseph's "autocratic" rule in general, his presidential run, and (possibly) the doings of the Council of Fifty.

In this case, I am pretty sure the Church would have sided with the union. While they supported slavery in Utah, it was a nonessential part of their economy.

Yeah; but as it was their contributions to the war effort were pretty token (just a contingent placed in the middle of nowhere to guard telegraph lines until Lincoln decided he really didn't trust the Mormons to guard his only link to California, if I remember correctly). Had they still been in Illinois, I think the pressure for Mormon men to join the Union army would have been immense. Hundreds--perhaps thousands--would have died.

By the way, I'm not sure the Church really had much to do with the Compromise of 1850 (which made UT a slave territory). (I'm open to changing my mind on this, though!)

Hard to make people be good. However, I think the majority would have followed Joseph's more tolerant and righteous example.

I would hope so. But as I understand it, Brigham Young had his hands full getting the American Saints to accept their fellow immigrants from Scandinavia.

[Vort]

At least in my experience if one sex is held as superior (generally speaking, and in the US) in the minds of church member's its women, not men...the sentiment is that men need the priesthood so they have a shot of being equal to their spouses.

This is so true...men need to be worthy in this life to receive that same level of power & authority as women already have...women have a "Superior faith, commitment, morality & spirituality & more trust in the Lord than men usually do...So men do need to be given something in this life (as Elder Cowley said in Gen. Conf.) to help them learn to be equal with righteous women.

Congratulations, Dravin! Your reward for voicing such opinions is that you get to be married to someone like foreverafter. Enjoy! :)

[Dravin]

Congratulations, Dravin! Your reward for voicing such opinions is that you get to be married to someone like foreverafter. Enjoy! :)

Yeah, I think I'll pass.

*makes mental note about being more careful about what he repeats*

[Moksha]

I don't think the Expositor limited itself to charges of polygamy against Joseph. Haven't read it in a while, but my recollection is it also complained about Joseph's "autocratic" rule in general, his presidential run, and (possibly) the doings of the Council of Fifty.

I thought William Law took exception to something Joseph Smith asked Mrs. Law.

By the way, I'm not sure the Church really had much to do with the Compromise of 1850 (which made UT a slave territory). (I'm open to changing my mind on this, though!)

I think the Comprise of 1850 empowered the Utah and New Mexico Territories to decide for themselves by "popular sovereignty" whether or not to allow slavery. So my guess is that it was decided by Brigham Young with a vote of confirmation later on in General Conference.

But as I understand it, Brigham Young had his hands full getting the American Saints to accept their fellow immigrants from Scandinavia.

And some of my ancestors thank him for that!

.

[Just_A_Guy]

I thought William Law took exception to something Joseph Smith asked Mrs. Law.

Most decidedly so, though there were apparently other factors at play.

I think the Comprise of 1850 empowered the Utah and New Mexico Territories to decide for themselves by "popular sovereignty" whether or not to allow slavery. So my guess is that it was decided by Brigham Young with a vote of confirmation later on in General Conference.

Ah. Thanks.

And some of my ancestors thank him for that!

Mine too. :)

[Wildflower]

Thank you all for your responses, especially Elphaba! Although I haven't been back to this thread for a while, I'm still interested in this topic. I wonder how much of our church leadership from the beginning until now descended from (or were) polygamists. Are there any numbers for this?