What if...

[deseretgov]

I'm known to think of a lot of what if's. So here's one I was thinking about. What if there was a country that had a strong LDS presence(let's say half a million), with at least one temple; and then that country made it a law that no religion could put any form punishment(i.e. Deny membership, excommunicate, disfellowship, etc) on any person who had more than one wife. If a church didn't abid by it then they would seize the property and disolve the organization of a church(kind of liek what happened when polygamy was outlawed in early church history). What would the Church do? Of course this is HIGHLY unlikely, that's why it's a "What if..."

So would the church change its policy and allow members in that hypothetical country to live plural marriage? Or would the church disolve its organization involving at least half a million members, allow said government to sieze all church property, including at least one temple?

We can't really know what the church would do but let's have fun and imagine. So what do you think the church would do?

[Elphaba]

I'm confused. Are you saying the country would only impinge its laws upon the Church if a man had two or more wives, but not if he had only one?

In other words, the Church could excommunicate, deny membership, disfellowship a man with one wife, but not with two or more?

Elphaba

[deseretgov]

I'm confused. Are you saying the country would only impinge its laws upon the Church if a man had two or more wives, but not if he had only one?

In other words, the Church could excommunicate, deny membership, disfellowship a man with one wife, but not with two or more?

Elphaba

What I mean is that a church(in our "what if" the Church) could not punish a person because of the fact they had more than one wife. But other reasons for punishment would still be allowed.

[NeuroTypical]

What if ... that country made it a law that no religion could put any form punishment ... on any person who had more than one wife. If a church didn't abid by it then they would seize the property and disolve the organization

...

So what do you think the church would do?

Probably the same thing the church did in Nazi Germany in WWII - be officially kicked out, and help the members in that country any way they could.

LM

[Elphaba]

What I mean is that a church(in our "what if" the Church) could not punish a person because of the fact they had more than one wife. But other reasons for punishment would still be allowed.

Perhaps there's another answer, but I believe the Church would leave that country. It can't allow anyone to legislate it's doctrines and practices.

I understand there are converts in countries where polygamy is very common, and that these members have been told a man can have only one wife. I have heard, but don't know if it is true, that some men have had to give up their other wives. I hope someone here can clear that up as to whether its true or not.

I don't know if this answers your question, but there you have it.

[deseretgov]

I'm inclined to agree with you Loudmoth. It seems to me more like what the church would do, especially since it's multinational. Of course it's a different time than in WW2. Who many members were in Germany and how many temples? Would the modern Church be willing to theologically abandon over 500,000 people?

I understand there are converts in countries where polygamy is very common, and that these members have been told a man can have only one wife. I have heard, but don't know if it is true, that some men have had to give up their other wives. I hope someone here can clear that up as to whether its true or not.

My understanding was that they would have to give up their other wives.

Edited September 7, 2009 by deseretgov

[deseretgov]

So you're also saying that the church would pull out of the hypothetical country, surrender all assets (including at least one temple), and leave at least half a million hypothetical people stranded religiously?

I posted this in another forum and someone gave an interesting answer. THey said they thought the Church would abide by the laws of the land but make sure to tell everyone(like in temple recommend interviews) that while they may be free from motral punishment that doesn't free them from eternal punishment for sdoing something that is against God's Laws.

But I guess we should also consider that there wouldn't be a huge flock of people going to get married to more than one wife. The number would probably be pretty low. Would the Church leave because of such a small number?

[lilered]

My vote would be: The Church would still oppose Polygamy regardless. The Church at present is in many countries today that has this practice and they still do not have a policy condoning Polygamy for the members living in that particuliar country or others. So they would leave the country unless they were inspired by God not to.

[Elphaba]

Plural marriage was not revoked due to the laws of the land. It was revoked because of the weakness of the saints.

Nonsense.

Plural marriage absolutely was revoked due to the laws of the land, i.e., the federal government. In fact, the 1890 Manifesto had to do with the federal government's refusal to cease passing and enforcing legislation against the Church as long as it continued to practice polygamy.

All Mormon historians acknowledge President Woodruff was in an impossible position because of the federal government’s insistence the Church stop it’s practice of polygamy. The government was able to force the Church’s hand in the items I have listed below.

These attempts to destroy the Church were both doctrinal (polygamy) and financial.

From Mormon Polygamy, A History, Van Wagoner:A feeling was developing bowing to governmental demands on polygamy. This feeling was enhanced on 20 October 1889 when Woodruff was quoted in the Salt Lake Tribune as saying:

I have refused to give any recommends for the performance of plural marriage since I have been president. . . And have instructed that they should not be solemnized.

One week later, in the 27 October 1889 Salt Lake Herald,Woodruff was asked:

What is the church attitude toward the law prohibiting polygamy?

Woodruff replied:

We mean to obey it. We have no thought of evading or ignoring it. We recognize the laws as binding upon us. I have refused to give any recommendations for the performance of plural marriages since I have been president.

. . . .

The Church suffered a staggering blow later that same month (May of 1890) when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Idaho test oath which disenfranchised Idaho Mormons.

Callum-Strubble Bill was intended to strip all Utah Mormons of their rights as American citizens.

Woodruff had actually cut down the number of plural marriages around 1888 to 1890,went to the Lord with that thought, and the result was the 1890 manifesto.

In 1889, Frank J. Cannon returned from the capitol and informed President Woodruff that he had repeated to prominent Congressional leaders the promise his father had made that “something will be done.”

. . .. .

To be very plain with you, young Cannon told the president, “our friends expect, and the country will insist that the Church shall yield the practice of polygamy.

. . . .

(To prepare them for the cessation of polygamy) Woodruff provided a brief history of the sufferings of the polygamous Saints in opposition to government regulations and declared that the courts had decided “against us.”He then pointed out, according to Frank Cannon’s account that “Brother George Q. Cannon, Brother John T. Caine, and the other brethren who had been in Washington, had found that the situation of the church was critical. Brother Franklin S. Richardson had advised that our last legal defense had fallen.

With a “broken” and “contrite” spirit, President Woodruff had “sought the will of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit had revealed that it was necessary for the church to relinquish the practice of that principle for which the brethren had been ready to lay down their lives.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The quotes above should give you a comprehensive look at what President Woodruff was facing, and dealing with. Ultimately, he knew the Church had to stop practicing polygamy, which eventually resulted in the 1890 Manifesto.

Most LDS think this manifesto ended polygamy. It did not. The elite of the Church continued to practice the principle until the US Government discovered it, and once again threatened the Church. So there is also a 1904 Manifesto, which did make anyone practicing polygamy in the SLC Church eligible for excommunication.

Regarding whether or not the Manifesto was a revelation from God, there still is controversy about that. No one denies it wasn’t an devastating expedient issue that required speed and talent. The question of whether the 1890 Manifesto was a divine manifestation or a political ruse designed to “beat the devil at its own game,” has long been a subject of debate. George Q. Cannon, during the 7 October General Conference, explained to the Saints:

We have waited for the Lord to move in on the matter, and on the 24 of September, President Woodruff made up his mind that he would write something, and he had the spirit of it. He had prayed about it and besought God repeatedly to show them what to do.

At that time the spirit came upon him, and the [Manifesto] is the result. (Conference Reports, October 1890) Woodruff himself, in a 20 August 1891 meeting, of the First Presidency, church lawyers and some apostles, said

Brethren, you may call it inspiration or revelation, or what you please; as for me, I am satisfied it is from the Lord

There is much more about President Woodruffs manifesto in a number of books. In this case I’ve culled information from Van Wagoner’s Mormon Polygamy: A History.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally regarding your claim the Saints were weak, there is no scholarly evidence that that was a concern. In fact, it is insulting to the Saints’ memory to say they were weak. You'd not find a people who were harder working, more dedicated, tested, and devoted to their God than you will in these Pioneers.

I admit there may have been Church authorities who claimed the members were weak, and that is why women had problems having children; however, the research and evidence does not show this to be true.

Celestial Marriage, or polygamy, was a religious practice, and as such, it should have been protected by the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause. But at the time, it was considered evil by the other Christian denominations, which was an honest position.

Unfortunately, that also meant the government would never accept polygamy.

While the men's fates were difficult, in my opinion they were nothing compared to the wives who had to go underground to protect their husbands from conviction. These wives carried young children and babies, and luggage all by themselves, often in the killing cold of winter. They were in dire danger of becoming ill, and each new stop was an incredible blessing to the.

These people were not lazy or weak, not physically, and not in the gospel.

I doubt we'll ever see members of the Church as faithful and constant as these Pioneers were. My admiration for them is huge, and I bristle at the casual accusation they were weak.

Elphaba

　

　

　

[Traveler]

There are significant misunderstandings of covenants in this thread. The covenants of G-d are the same for ever nation, kindred, tongue and people. The covenant of marriage is most likely the most misunderstood and most abused divine covenant in society today as well as when so many among the saints twisted it to their carnal desires when polygamy was first introduced among the saints in this last dispensation.

The Traveler

[lilered]

Lets see if I understand. In the beginning, desertgov posts a hypothetical question concerning the controversial subject of polygamy, and asks for responses to his hypoetheticial question.

It has now progressed to the point, that we have signifigant misunderstandings!! Hum! I can't imagine.

Edited September 7, 2009 by lilered

[Traveler]

Lets see if I understand. In the beginning, desertgov posts a hypothetical question concerning the controversial subject of polygamy, and asks for responses to his hypoetheticial question.

It has now progressed to the point, that we have signifigant misunderstandings!! Hum! I can't imagine.

When a question is asked on a point of misunderstanding then any answer directly to the question, by the definition of rhetorical logic - will be incorrect. When the premise is incorrect all conclusions will be misleading and wrong.

The Traveler

[lilered]

Oh, so if one starts out with a hypothetical question, all answers given after that are correct as long as there is no misunderstanding.

[Traveler]

Oh, so if one starts out with a hypothetical question, all answers given after that are correct as long as there is no misunderstanding.

Somehow I am not communicating - if the assumptions of a hypothetical are incorrect then nothing can be gained in investigating it. My point of this thread is that the hypothetical associated with polygamy is incorrect. According to the covenant of marriage G-d must command each individual family through his living prophet in order for a second wife to be added to a family. There is more to the covenant but since this first part of the covenant is ignored in the hypothetical any possible conclusions would be flawed.

If someone was to start a hypothetical with the assumption “Suppose that the laws of physics did not apply to the universe” – Well since the laws of physics do apply any conclusions could not be applied to this universe. Rhetorical logic would indicate that such a hypothetical is a waste of time. Which is a continuing possibility if I cannot convince you that any assumption must conform to known laws and parameters in order to have any justification?

The Traveler

[lilered]

Traveler- Your communicating fine. I was just pulling your leg a bit.

Edited September 8, 2009 by lilered

[deseretgov]

Somehow I am not communicating - if the assumptions of a hypothetical are incorrect then nothing can be gained in investigating it. My point of this thread is that the hypothetical associated with polygamy is incorrect. According to the covenant of marriage G-d must command each individual family through his living prophet in order for a second wife to be added to a family. There is more to the covenant but since this first part of the covenant is ignored in the hypothetical any possible conclusions would be flawed.

If someone was to start a hypothetical with the assumption “Suppose that the laws of physics did not apply to the universe” – Well since the laws of physics do apply any conclusions could not be applied to this universe. Rhetorical logic would indicate that such a hypothetical is a waste of time. Which is a continuing possibility if I cannot convince you that any assumption must conform to known laws and parameters in order to have any justification?

The Traveler

I'm not sure what you mean. The thred wasn't about commanding people to live plural marriage but was about government forced acceptance of it. It not about if people would actually take more than one wife it's about what the church would do if it were forced to abandon excommunication/denying admittance to the temple to those who have or would marry more than one wife.

[Guest Alana]

Sounds as if the church could not abide by the laws of the land, that it would not impose itself on that land. As far as giving up assets, things can be sold, given away, dissembled and made into other things, so I don't think that we'd have to worry about the temple suddenly being taken and desecrated, they would take care of that fairly quickly. I wouldn't see this as an abandonment of the members.

[Mason]

Plural marriage was not revoked due to the laws of the land.

Ever heard of Reed Smoot?

The church does what God tells it to do, regardless of the laws of the land.

Not according to history.

[Maxel]

Not according to history.

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." -Napoleon Bonaparte

There's reason to assume that the Church may have, indeed, changed its practice becasuse of a commandment of God. Persecution against the Saints happened for many, many years before it was rescinded.

[Mason]

"History is a set of lies agreed upon." -Napoleon Bonaparte

True enough.

There's reason to assume that the Church may have, indeed, changed its practice becasuse of a commandment of God. Persecution against the Saints happened for many, many years before it was rescinded.

If you get a copy of the Reed Smoot hearings, you'll read about a certain US Senator who directly accused the LDS Church of changing it's policy on polygamy because of US Law. JFS did not refute it. It was because of these hearings that the 2nd manifesto was issued in 1904, banning polygamy worldwide, not just in US territory.

[joel99]

I'm waiting for the part where the OP tells us that the UK or a similar country (they have two temples though) will allow polygamy under certain circumstances and therefore this isn't a hypothetical question.

My answer is that I'd expect the president of the church to do the correct thing.

j.

[Traveler]

I'm not sure what you mean. The thred wasn't about commanding people to live plural marriage but was about government forced acceptance of it. It not about if people would actually take more than one wife it's about what the church would do if it were forced to abandon excommunication/denying admittance to the temple to those who have or would marry more than one wife.

With this post it would be my understanding that before such was possible that the 1st Ammendment must be repealed. If such is the case then there is much more to be concerned about beyond plural marriage.

I believe that under such conditions the saints would have to find another gathering place - I do not see that in prophasy.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

Or perhaps the Lord would bring down this country to allow such changes to come about for the better of the masses.

[Moksha]

Deseret, my guess is that a number of LDS members in that country would go for plural marriage if they were immune to punishment regardless of an official Church acceptance. I base that upon having read responses from people on various forums where there have been similar hypotheticals about polygamy. No, I do not think the Church would abandon their presence in such a country because of this change.

:)

[Moksha]

If God told us to, we could always move elsewhere to practice what God tells us to.

Probably make the desert bloom again in Saudi Arabia if we were allowed visas.

My other guess is that this would form a schism in the LDS Church. The solidly monogamous group, I think, is the largest. The desire to return to polygamy is strong in many Mormons, but only 45% at tops.

:)