The One Subject That Could Drive Me From The Church

[Adomini22]

In response to church_girl and KOGON:

Let's pretend that once upon a time, the U.S. government said: "You cannot practice polygamy or your Church will be stripped of legal protection, financial assets and your members will be jailed." Hmmm, sounds awfully familiar. Let's translate the above threat into it's practical implications: "You can endorse polygamy as a Church, and cease to be a Church and operate as a Church...or you can abandon polygamy and continue to publicly and legally teach your gospel, administer your ordinances, and worship God according to your beliefs."

CrimsonKairos

Isn't that why the church,by no later than 1890 (and possibly sooner) publicly dis-associated itself with that principle? It was never a tenant of the church, but a law of the priesthood, which is why Joseph Smith,as president of the church, would cut people of for living it in the church without priesthood sanction. At the same time, he and others lived it. He was actually in a position where he himself could have been excommunicated from the church. The church can accept or reject any doctrine they choose, it is something of a theological democracy. The priesthood cannot. This explains to me why the hierarchy of the church continued in the practice and supported efforts for its continuation after the manifesto of 1890. The role of the president was a dual role at least, one as head of the church and one as head of the priesthood. As head of the church, Wilford Woodruff had the responsibility of preserving it. As president of the priesthood, he was bound by the laws of God, thus he appeared duplicitous.

The limits that God operates in his only, not mans. He gave man agency to choose for himself to follow him or not. When Jesus came in the meridian of time, he went to God's chosen people, HIS church, and said follow me. Some did, and the rest crucified him. Where in the scriptures is an example of one of God's prophets putting aside a law or a commandment because he might lose property or be put in jail? To my knowledge there is no such example. Why would they trade the exaltation for temporary comfort.

In response to church_girl and KOGON:

"Now since God isn't going to "force" the government to give legal and political support to His Church, and since His Church must be allowed to work and serve and operate freely to prepare the world for Christ's Second Coming, then the only viable option is to withdraw the requirement to live a certain law."

Interesting point. Withdraw the law to be able to prepare the way for the second coming of Christ, who can and will only come when there is a people living all his laws.

Um, the scriptures state in DC that if the church continued polygamy.... the government would take our temples and jail everyone. Its really that simple. Besides, polygamy is needed anyway if you get to the higher order in the celestial kingdom. Why are there more women than men? Um think of the 1/3 of the host of heaven who were cast away. Hint: they were all priesthood holders and male. So, a way is needed anyways for all women to have the chance to marry a righteous priesthood holder and get into the higher order(or at least the chance). Doctrine says this.

[Guest MrsS]

Um think of the 1/3 of the host of heaven who were cast away. Hint: they were all priesthood holders and male. So, a way is needed anyways for all women to have the chance to marry a righteous priesthood holder and get into the higher order(or at least the chance). Doctrine says this.

Would you please quote your sources on that statement. Thank You. :)

[MaidservantX]

Why can't we marry people from other planets?

[Guest MrsS]

Why can't we marry people from other planets?

Who says we haven't??? I honestly believe my ex husband is from the planet Amselfish&inconsiderate

[Dale]

If God can look past most of the sins of David why not Joseph Smith? Rejection or acceptance of the content of D.&C. 132 is a matter of faith. I reject the content, but am still mostly ok with other inspiring aspects of Joseph Smith's prophetic ministry.

The temptation to resist is to get obsessed with one hard to accept aspect of history, and forget all the positve. Worst case scenario Joseph Smith was like David & Solomon. But unless you feel he was a fallen prophet then the content of the revelation doesn't condemn him at all. The revelation declares him innocent of one type of polygamy & adultury.

Not saying I myself believe the content, but belief in the content as helped many believers in Joseph Smith's calling remain believers. A lot of individuals believe the content out of love for the Lord pushing aside personal dislike for the polygamy content. I think if you are open to the revelation being true this option is for you. Doubts & questions will remain, but the Lord can give you faith to remain in your church.

I have felt the Holy Spirit in LDS services. This peaceful presence convinced me that even if Joseph Smith was possibly a libertine you can find salvation in the LDS Church. I know LDS people love the Lord because it's clear in the way they talk about him.

Why leave the church unless you can find a better place for yourself? The recovery from Mormonism crowd is a bad place to me. I like my restoration church, but try & avoid the negative Ex-Mormon Anti-Mormon syndrome.

[CrimsonKairos]

Where in the scriptures is an example of one of God's prophets putting aside a law or a commandment because he might lose property or be put in jail...Why would they trade the exaltation for temporary comfort.

Temporary comfort? That's an interesting turn of speech concerning the survival of God's Church. It wasn't about comfort. It was about being able to continue to administer the gospel and ordinances of salvation. It's not like the choice was, "Practice polygamy and live in a cardboard box, or abandon it and have a mansion." It was, "Practice polygamy and have your Church cease to exist overnight, or abandon it and retain the legal right to serve God as you choose." Comfort had nothing to do with it.

...Withdraw the law to be able to prepare the way for the second coming of Christ, who can and will only come when there is a people living all his laws.

Where in the world do you get that idea from? Scriptures?

[Dale]

They didn't hold they excluded themselves from exaltation by not practicing polygamy. I don't know if this goes on today. But some women were sealed to various LDS leaders by proxy. Since a marriage contracted in mortality can continue in death one need not practice polygamy in mortality to fulfill the commandment. Such sealings could be done without leaking out what is done to the public. A lot of sealing by proxy for deceased persons goes on all the time by proxy. If a leader had an LDS leaders name submitted for plural marriage sealings by proxy, or other men the public would never know. Plural marriage sealing by proxy is entirely legal.

An LDS leader by the name of Heber J. Grant mother had been sealed to Joseph Smith by proxy. I think the practice ended but who knows as LDS leaders don't reveal much Temple goings on to the public. If such covert sealings were going on only a few in the know would know.

I think code names or false names could be submitted as a cover for the real leader or individuals name.

Since having children does not end at death for sealed LDS couples they would not have to beget children in mortality.

Of course I am speculating about the possibility of legal proxy plural marriage sealings that may not be still taking place. I think it would be cool if such sealings were going on and such a great mystery was kept. The U.S. government can't hide secrets from rumormongerors so good. But if a list of such names could be submitted for Temple work such records can be quickly stored by some in the LDS leadership. Who would see all the records? Access must be limited to records of finished sealing activities in LDS temples.

The Bible is not the final authority in LDS belief. In LDS belief God is the final authority in matters of faith or practice. Modern revelation is the vehicle for God to dispense his continuing authority. D.&C. 132 has never been repudiated by the leaders. It's still essential to salvation just not the earthly plural marriage part. No president of the LDS Church would refuse a re-institution command from God if the U.S. government collapsed.

[church girl]

Where in the scriptures is an example of one of God's prophets putting aside a law or a commandment because he might lose property or be put in jail...Why would they trade the exaltation for temporary comfort.

Temporary comfort? That's an interesting turn of speech concerning the survival of God's Church. It wasn't about comfort. It was about being able to continue to administer the gospel and ordinances of salvation. It's not like the choice was, "Practice polygamy and live in a cardboard box, or abandon it and have a mansion." It was, "Practice polygamy and have your Church cease to exist overnight, or abandon it and retain the legal right to serve God as you choose." Comfort had nothing to do with it.

The latter part seems an oxymoron.

"Practice polygamy and have your Church cease to exist overnight, or abandon it and retain the legal right to serve God as you choose." Comfort had nothing to do with it.

What legal right did the people of the church obtain, to serve God as they chose? The hierarchy of the church at the time chose to live the full law of celestial marriage including a plurality of wives. What further right did they obtain from the government by giving up that principle? It was a loss of thir rights to serve theirr God as they saw fit. It matters not which principle was abrogated, the loss of any part leaves the balance lacking or incomplete. I am not criticising Willford Woodruff for what he did for the temporal salvation of the church. As I believe he was a prophet of God, I can only assume he had good reasons for issueing the manifesto of 1890. However, his actions and the actions of his associates after the manifesto tell me that they (those that presided over the preisthood) where still under obligation to keep that principle( celestial plural marriage) alive. A very limited search of the court procedings and the testimony given by these men under oath will ll prove that.

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't have access to the court proceedings and testimony, but if you do, that's cool.

[Dale]

They may have been under obligation, but they still believed God had the authority to release them from the obligation.

[Princess3dward]

I am a faithful Mormon male. I believe in the LDS church with all my heart, but there is one issue that has bothered me for many years about it. I once forbade myself to even think about this issue for about 10 years. It is the issue of polygamy.

Don't get me wrong. I have a testimony that it is true and it's even been revealed to me that I may well one day be living it. But it seems so blasted unfair to the women involved -- why should they have to share their husband(s) with other women?

It strikes me as very unfair that a man could have so many wives he couldn't even spend a reasonable amount of time with any one of them. Joseph Smith had about 33 wives when he died. How could he have possibly spent any time with any of them, when he had all his church, civic, and other duties to deal with, along with persecution? Brigham Young and Heber Kimball had 36 and about 42 wives respectively -- why did they need so blasted many? Kimball said he thought no more of marrying a wife than he did of buying a cow. This saying bothers me more than any other thing I've heard about this subject.

Why would Joseph Smith tell at least one of his wives that unless she accepted his marriage proposal, the gates of heaven would be closed against her forever? I understand he said something similar to at least one other. This just doesn't strike me as being right. If I told any woman that unless she married me, she would be forever barred from the celestial kingdom, I'd expect her to laugh in my face and run the other way.

I know the church is true with all my heart, but I've never been able to come to peace with the subject of polygamy, even though I know it's a true principle. I'm hoping to find some peace on the matter, and I hope I'm not opening a Pandora's box here or spreading discontent. But nobody in the church talks much about this subject and so I've been left to deal with this mostly on my own.

If anybody here has any thoughts on this subject, I'd very much appreciate you sharing them. Thank you.

Seeker

I'm not sharing my husband

I find it hugely unfair!

I hadn't read any of the other replies.

I am going to though, because I am interested in what some people have to say about it.

I just wanted to voice how much I dislike it.

That is all.

[seekerw]

It can be genuine affection, hey most muslim women actually defend and enjoy it!

What's your source for this? According to the book Now They Call Me Infidel, authored by an ex-Muslim woman from the Middle East, polygamy is a nightmare for women in that society, the way the men practice it there.

[seekerw]

I must admit, I would be happy being an eternal monogamist if everybody else was. But seeing that some men will be eternal polygamists, it awakens some sort of competitiveness in me and I don't want to be left behind. I figure if Joseph Smith and others could have many eternal wives, why can't I? I'd feel jealous of these men if I couldn't do likewise.

As I've said before, maybe I should just put the subject of polygamy entirely out of mind, focus on being the best monogomist husband I can be in this life, and let eternity take care of itself.

I've gone through the posts on this thread and saw the following quotes I'd like to reply to.

Serg,

{If it is, it certainly should be satisfaied NOW, as many poor men are being tried unjustly, because they, de facto, because of their intrinsic needs, NEED this practice, without which aparently, they are not only unhappy but in grave danger of commiting adultery(as their need is so profound and real that they cant take it).}

I beg to differ. I don't think men have an intrinsic need for sex. I was married for 23 years (recently divorced) and my ex went through times when she didn't want sex. We sometimes went six months, eight months, or a year without physical intimacy. Yet I wasn't driven to have an affair. I was able to keep my urges under control.

Dale,

{What item of Joseph Smith & polygamy bothers you? I confess I don't believe in plural marriage. But I have most of the information relating to the 33 wives at my disposal.}

What bugs me the most is that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have spent much time with any of his wives, except for Emma. What business does anybody have being married to wives he can't spend time with. This would leave them alone much of the time and wouldn't allow them to satisfy their own physical desires for intimacy. This bugs me the most about it.

Xhenli,

{But to the degree that any man or any woman 'needs' it, polygamy helps the ladies out too. Instead of a woman being single, remaining single, because there is not a man for her, and thereby being required to be celibate in order to be holy. That's painful for the ladies, too. Polygamy could conceivably solve that problem.}

Agreed. However, I sort of wish the Lord would have made more men that would be righteous than he did. That way we wouldn't need polygamy. I must admit, your argument kind of makes me want to be a Mormon giggolo, focusing on serving the needs of my single sisters. I know, I know, I won't really do it.

Church girl,

I see you’re a Fundamentalist Mormon. Whenever I see that term, I automatically assume the person is a polygamist. Do you mind if I ask you whether you practice polygamy?

Last summer I visited two women in another state, neither of whom were Mormon, but we went to a Mormon church together. I felt like introducing us as fundamentalist Mormons and that they were two of my wives, just to see what reaction I might have gotten.

[church girl]

They may have been under obligation, but they still believed God had the authority to release them from the obligation.

To my understanding God is unchanging , everlasting to everlasting, the same yesterday, today, and forever. I believe some reasons for this are: If he wasn't constant, mankind could not have much if any faith in him. Also, as we are governed by Gods law,in theory at least, so too is he governed by law, eternal law. I don't see how he can break, suspend, abrogate, or release from an eternal law. He can bar people from access to the higher laws and has done so because of the disobedients or corruptness of the people( As in Exodus). When the law was taken from the people, so where the blessings that are predicated upon the living of that law. They where given the lower law and in turn, could only receive the blessings for those laws. Even though Israel was given a lower law, Moses, at least, and probably his close associates, received and kept the higher law that was intended for all Israel.

[church girl]

Church girl,

I see you’re a Fundamentalist Mormon. Whenever I see that term, I automatically assume the person is a polygamist. Do you mind if I ask you whether you practice polygamy?

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

FUNDAMENT'AL, n. A leading or primary principle, rule, law or article, which serves as the ground work of a system; essential part; as the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

The gospel as restored, taught, and lived by Joseph Smith jr. is the above for me, which makes me a Fundamentalist Mormon. The vast majority of Fundamentalists that I know are monogamists. I, however, am a plural wife.

[MaidservantX]

I just read a statistic blurb in my October 2005 Psychology Today mag that for every one hundred female children born, there are 105 boy babies born. If you go back to conception, there are 120 males conceived for every 100 females.

Don't know why that belonged in this thread, just felt the need to share.

[church girl]

I believe the statistics in the church are quite different. Not the births, but the ratio of available worthy males vs. available worthy females. I have heard reports that the men are out numbered, but I don't know exactly how much.

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

male mortality is much higher in all age brackets, though. As shown by the stats you cited, male mortality between conception and birth is even higher. But also infant mortality, childhood mortality and adolescent mortality are higher for males. By age 20, females are clearly ahead. male/female mortality is roughly equal in non-warring societies through the 20s and 30s, except in places where childbearing is particularly risky. Then male mortality pops up again from the 40s on, leaving older widdows.

[Adomini22]

<div class='quotemain'>

Um think of the 1/3 of the host of heaven who were cast away. Hint: they were all priesthood holders and male. So, a way is needed anyways for all women to have the chance to marry a righteous priesthood holder and get into the higher order(or at least the chance). Doctrine says this.

Would you please quote your sources on that statement. Thank You. :)

Sure. Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith. A few other things that have alluded to such (and please be kind, since I am not declaring anything) in my opinion are 2 Nephi 14 and the book Life Everlasting by Duane Crowther, and a few quotes from Hugh Nibley in books such as Temple and Cosmos, Zion,etc. These are some things I have picked up and therefore assume. Yet I am a man, and can be wrong. It made quite a bit of sense to a few questions I have had, therefore, I write this post. Thanx for your reply MrsS and I do hope for any kind of response. I do after all just want to learn truth even if I am wrong.

[Dr T]

If you go back to conception, there are 120 males conceived for every 100 females.

What? At conception, they are neither male nor female. It takes some development.

[MaidservantX]

I think they would be male or female chromosomally (xx or xy), wouldn't they, except for any unusual combos (xxy, etc).? This needs a new thread, eh? Ha ha.

[pushka]

I just googled the question 'Are all embryos female?' and below is one of the site results:

http://www.narth.com/docs/berman2.html Quotes from that article:

'The Puzzle argues that male homosexuality results from an interaction between inborn and social factors, and that an important inborn factor is low brain masculinization. Why do male brains have to become masculinized at a given stage of embryonic development? Because for the first six weeks of life, all embryos are proto-female. Afterwards, some male brains become more thoroughly masculinized than others.'

'A well-trained embryologist cannot tell the difference between a male and a female embryo if the embryo is less than seven weeks old. At that early stage of prenatal life, there is a fork in the road of development. If there are no hormonal changes in the prenatal environment, the embryo developes into a female. If, however, the embryo is destined to become a male, its Y-chromosomes trigger the production of testosterone (the male hormone), which masculinizes the brain and genitalia (internal as well as external) of the embryo. But it takes no female hormone to produce a female infant. (Only at age ten or later does the female body begin to produce the hormones that transform the girl into a woman.)

Every person begins life with a proto-female brain. Testosterone masculinizes the brain (and genitals) of those embryos that are genetically marked to develop as males.'

So it appears, at least from that article, that we are all conceived as female, which is what I'd heard in the past.

[Dr T]

I missed seekers posts above some how. Thank you for your thoughts, sir.

===

Thanks Push. That's why "at conception" stuck out to me.

[kiwibabee]

I think you are all thinking to deep into this.

Not all will be called to practice polygamy, not all were called back in Joseph Smiths time.

I do not know if I could do it or not, but if called upon I would do it.

as for worrying if my Husband would love the other wives more just think of your children. I love all of my children differently. I am sure that will be how it will be, we all bring something different to the family.

As for Joseph Smith having been sealed to a lot of wives, most were for name only.

My great-great-great grandmother was Emily Dow Partridge and she was sealed to him only, and when he was martyred she then married Brigham Young.

I don't worry about it.

back in Joseph Smiths time we were asked to live the law of consecration, but that isn't happening now either. The Lord Giveth, the Lord Taketh Away.

But if you are going to let something that isn't even being practiced to shake your testimony, you have other things to worry.

[Dale]

I understand Emily partridge claimed an earthly marital relationship with Joseph Smith? Is it your family understanding she claimed that due to religious leaders pressure? Or perhaps you just arn't aware of the claim and interpret the sealing as platonic for mortality?