Is polygamy necessary for exaltation?

[Guest]

One thing history definitely shows us is that people follow the counsel of the Brethren with immediacy and exactness, always.

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Pretty thin really, stop means stop not kinda stop or mostly stop. "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. " But they didn't stop.

I get it there was a lot of political pressure at the time, the church lost a big case trying to defend their religious practices, they wanted statehood so big pressure to capitulate to the US government and they make big gestures to show contrition and compliance to the rule of law. 

Context is important...

Historically the church had been taught that the practice was "required" and historically the church had be persecuted for the practice... this leads to the faithful saints practicing but then being evasive and covert about it.

That was the habit and mindset... Then the rules changed.  But the Church as a whole didn't get that vision... They got the prophet talking, which could have been more of the evasive and covertness they have always used, so the members could not be sure that the rules had changed.   So old habits  would rule.  The prophet would then have take apostles and other general authorities firmly in hand and convince them that the rules have changed.  Then they would need to do the same with local leaders... and the local leaders with the members...  And that takes time... and even more time then it would take today with our modern communication devices

[omegaseamaster75]

13 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

One thing history definitely shows us is that people follow the counsel of the Brethren with immediacy and exactness, always.

What about when the brethren don't follow the brethren? 

[omegaseamaster75]

14 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Context is important...

Historically the church had been taught that the practice was "required" and historically the church had be persecuted for the practice... this leads to the faithful saints practicing but then being evasive and covert about it.

That was the habit and mindset... Then the rules changed.  But the Church as a whole didn't get that vision... They got the prophet talking, which could have been more of the evasive and covertness they have always used, so the members could not be sure that the rules had changed.   So old habits  would rule.  The prophet would then have take apostles and other general authorities firmly in hand and convince them that the rules have changed.  Then they would need to do the same with local leaders... and the local leaders with the members...  And that takes time... and even more time then it would take today with our modern communication devices

I get that it takes time for things to trickle down stream. I do more so then without phones, internet etc. My issue is that the Brethren didn't go along with the policy change. THey may have agreed with it in principle but definitely not in practice

[MrShorty]

@omegaseamaster: that is an interesting aspect of the manifesto, isn't it. That it seems to have been issued without clear and committed unanimity among the Q12. How might the lifting of Priesthood ban been different in Pres. McKay or Pres. Kimball had moved forward without waiting for full unanimity among the Q12? What does it suggest about the Chruch's revelatory process if something that we today accept as revelation, but at the time it was given, was not universally accepted by all of the Brethren?

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I get that it takes time for things to trickle down stream. I do more so then without phones, internet etc. My issue is that the Brethren didn't go along with the policy change. THey may have agreed with it in principle but definitely not in practice

Agency...  The brethren all have agency...  Chances that they did not agree at first so D&C : 121 comes into play in trying to convince them... Most would come around some might not.  In time those that did not... those that locked into the position that they were right and the prophet was wrong would face church discipline

[omegaseamaster75]

6 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Agency...  The brethren all have agency...  Chances that they did not agree at first so D&C : 121 comes into play in trying to convince them... Most would come around some might not.  In time those that did not... those that locked into the position that they were right and the prophet was wrong would face church discipline

Again pretty thin, your defending the indefensible. They the "brethren" all signed off on the manifesto before it was presented to the body of the church and WW knew that they were continuing the practice by engaging in other plural "new" marriages after the declaration had been ratified by the body of the church.

[estradling75]

3 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Again pretty thin, your defending the indefensible. They the "brethren" all signed off on the manifesto before it was presented to the body of the church and WW knew that they were continuing the practice by engaging in other plural "new" marriages after the declaration had been ratified by the body of the church.

Cite names... Name the ones that signed off and then continued.  It is easy to  say that they "All signed" off  with out knowing who they are..  It is easy to "assume" those that continued signed off...  But with out names it is simple speculation that they over lapped...

 

But lets assume that a few did anyway... how does that negate the answer?  It is so easy to imagine one (or some) of them thinking that the statement they signed off on was a PR stunt with strong terms to get the government off their backs.  And that the church would continue business as usual

[Just_A_Guy]

49 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

What about when the brethren don't follow the brethren?

Cowley and Taylor were ultimately dropped from the Q12 because of it.  As for the others . . . aren't you kind of making some assumptions here?  Woodruff's statement was widely interpreted as applying primarily to polygamy within the borders of the United States.  The article you cited indicated that of the 25 post-manifesto plural marriages recorded in the ledger, only six took place within the territorial United States.  Now, the Apostolic plural marriages you cite, aren't a part of that ledger; but given the overwhelming statistical trend . . . isn't it kind of on you, to prove that those particular marriages were solemnized in contravention of American law and therefore clearly a violation of the Manifesto? 

And even if they were--are you sure that Woodruff himself didn't greenlight them, and that such greenlighting would have been a violation of the (unpublished) revelation that Woodruff said he received?

Edited August 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Cite names... Name the ones that signed off and then continued.  It is easy to  say that they "All signed" off  with out knowing who they are..  It is easy to "assume" those that continued signed off...  But with out names it is simple speculation that they over lapped...

 

It is easy to say that they all signed off on it because they DID From LDS.org: The members of the Quorum of the Twelve varied in their reactions to the Manifesto. Franklin D. Richards was sure it was “the work of the Lord.” Francis M. Lyman said that “he had endorsed the Manifesto fully when he first heard it.”19 Not all the Twelve accepted the document immediately. John W. Taylor said he did “not yet feel quite right about it” at first.20 John Henry Smith candidly admitted that “the Manifesto had disturbed his feelings very much” and that he was still “somewhat at sea” regarding it.21 Within a week, however, all members of the Twelve voted to sustain the Manifesto.

 

I'll name names, this is also from LDS.org : In all, 8 of 19 members of the Quorum of the Twelve who served between 1890 and 1904 married new plural wives during those years, and these marriages are not represented on the ledger. These members include Brigham Young Jr., George Teasdale, John W. Taylor, Abraham H. Cannon, Marriner W. Merrill, Matthias F. Cowley, Abraham Owen Woodruff, and Rudger Clawson. It is alleged that President Wilford Woodruff married an additional plural wife in 1897, but the historical record makes this unclear (see Thomas G. Alexander, Things in Heaven and Earth: The Life and Times of Wilford Woodruff, a Mormon Prophet [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1991], 326–28).

21 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

But lets assume that a few did anyway... how does that negate the answer?  It is so easy to imagine one (or some) of them thinking that the statement they signed off on was a PR stunt with strong terms to get the government off their backs.  And that the church would continue business as usual

not a few half or almost half didn't take it seriously? with an accusation that the prophet himself took an extra wife during that time period. 

[omegaseamaster75]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Cowley and Taylor were ultimately dropped from the Q12 because of it.  As for the others . . . aren't you kind of making some assumptions here?  Woodruff's statement was widely interpreted as applying primarily to polygamy within the borders of the United States.  The article you cited indicated that of the 25 post-manifesto plural marriages recorded in the ledger, only six took place within the territorial United States.  Now, the Apostolic plural marriages you cite, aren't a part of that ledger; but given the overwhelming statistical trend . . . isn't it kind of on you, to prove that those particular marriages were solemnized in contravention of American law and therefore clearly a violation of the Manifesto? 

And even if they were--are you sure that Woodruff himself didn't greenlight them, and that such greenlighting would have been a violation of the (unpublished) revelation that Woodruff said he received?

Cowley and taylor were dropped in what 1904-05 after the 2nd declaration. They needed a goat and they were it.

 

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

  Now, the Apostolic plural marriages you cite, aren't a part of that ledger; but given the overwhelming statistical trend . . . isn't it kind of on you, to prove that those particular marriages were solemnized in contravention of American law and therefore clearly a violation of the Manifesto? 

Yeah kind of funny how they didn't want their marriages recorded on the ledger....makes you wonder who had ultimate control of that ledger. They cooked the books, come on it's clear as day.

 

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And even if they were--are you sure that Woodruff himself didn't greenlight them, and that such greenlighting would have been a violation of the (unpublished) revelation that Woodruff said he received?

No way of knowing but if he did he went against the official doctrine of the church as presented by him, ratafied by the 12 and sustained by the body of the church.

[Just_A_Guy]

Omegaseamaster, it's odd to me how in less than two hours you've evolved from "Time to start digging" to " They needed a goat and they [Taylor and Cowley] were it" and "They cooked the books, come on it's clear as day".  Frankly, your utter refusal to look at any sort of nuance and your insistence on speaking in absolutes, are hallmarks of anti-Mormon discourse; and I know that's not what you are.  I would respectfully encourage you to conduct your studies and your discourse with a little less rashness.

Quote

Yeah kind of funny how they didn't want their marriages recorded on the ledger....makes you wonder who had ultimate control of that ledger.

Let's think about what you're implying for a minute.  If they were really cooking the books, wouldn't they have made darned sure that no polygamous marriages were recorded?  The LDS.org article itself describes the ledger as noncomprehensive. 

Quote

No way of knowing but if he did he went against the official doctrine of the church as presented by him, ratafied by the 12 and sustained by the body of the church.

Meh.  The "Article on Marriage" which renounced polygamy, was "official doctrine as presented by [Joseph], ratified by the 12 and sustained by the body of the church" right up until 1876; and of course Joseph and Brigham (and the rest of the Church) were acting in contravention of that "doctrine" long before then.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

27 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Omegaseamaster, it's odd to me how in less than two hours you've evolved from "Time to start digging" to " They needed a goat and they [Taylor and Cowley] were it" and "They cooked the books, come on it's clear as day".  Frankly, your utter refusal to look at any sort of nuance and your insistence on speaking in absolutes, are hallmarks of anti-Mormon discourse; and I know that's not what you are.  I would respectfully encourage you to conduct your studies and your discourse with a little less rashness.

I am going to agree with JAG on this...  and add...  I see no point in further discussion due to such actions

 

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Eowyn said:

One thing history definitely shows us is that people follow the counsel of the Brethren with immediacy and exactness, always.

I think history shows the exact opposite. There are sermons given by BY expressing his disappointment in the members for not following the WoW and tithing doctrines exactly. I don't know that it's even possible for human beings to be able to obey anything with "immediacy and exactness". After all, people are not robots and free agency has always been a belief throughout LDS history.

M.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Maureen

[NeedleinA]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am going to agree with JAG on this...  and add...  I see no point in further discussion due to such actions

I'm going to also agree. @omegaseamaster75 we may not always agree, but you are a smart enough guy to figure a lot of this out yourself. This isn't a case where I think you are "going against the current narrative of the Brethren" or something like that, it is simply I believe you have shown in the past you are smart enough to dig and find a positive vs. concluding/assuming only a negative. Digging in the right spots is always important too.

[zil]

13 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I think history shows the exact opposite. There are sermons given by BY expressing his disappointment in the members for not following the WoW and tithing doctrines exactly. I don't know that it's even possible for human beings to be able to obey anything with "immediacy and exactness". After all, people are not robots and free agency has always been a belief throughout LDS history.

M.

She was being sarcastic.  (Seemed obvious enough to me, but that's at least 2 who didn't seem to pick up on it.)

[Guest]

Cookie for zil. (and interesting example of people seeing what they want to see.)

[omegaseamaster75]

 

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Let's think about what you're implying for a minute.  If they were really cooking the books, wouldn't they have made darned sure that no polygamous marriages were recorded?  The LDS.org article itself describes the ledger as noncomprehensive. 

Their records were not recorded, it gives them moral high ground.  Like you said why record anything at all...but they did. Don't you think that they would have wanted plausible deniability?

 

2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

I'm going to also agree. @omegaseamaster75 we may not always agree, but you are a smart enough guy to figure a lot of this out yourself. This isn't a case where I think you are "going against the current narrative of the Brethren" or something like that, it is simply I believe you have shown in the past you are smart enough to dig and find a positive vs. concluding/assuming only a negative. Digging in the right spots is always important too.

What's the current narrative?  I always thought that the narrative was in 1890 we stopped the practice of plural marriage, that existing marriages would stay intact but that there would be no future plural sealings (earthly), and that in 1904 with the 2nd declaration the church had to take a hard line with a few rogue GA's. Is this the narrative that we are to believe? If it is, it's not the correct narrative is it? the correct narrative is much more nuanced than that.

Anyways I'll drop it.   

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, zil said:

She was being sarcastic.  (Seemed obvious enough to me, but that's at least 2 who didn't seem to pick up on it.)

She's not very good at sarcasm then, especially on a forum.

M.

[Nothing]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 10:06 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

Something to bear in mind about the JoD is that it didn't constitute the first publication of many/most of the material contained therein--the Deseret News usually published them first.  As I understand it, during compilation of the Brigham Young manual, the Church made a conscious effort to cite as much as possible from the Deseret News rather than the JoD (antis suggest it's because the Church wanted to avoid encouraging use of the JoD; apologists suggest that the Church had a sincere belief that the earliest report would be the most reliable and in best harmony with current historiographical practices).

The potential for transcription/scrivener's errors endemic to the JoD, really exist with pretty much any recorded extemporaneous speech from any church leader of the period (ever seen the competing versions of the King Follett discourse)?  It's not that we should be more trusting of the sermons recorded in the JoD; it's that we should probably be a little less trusting of the sermons reported via other sources.

Chapter 1 of the Brigham Young manual quotes the Deseret News a lot because that is the chapter about his ministry. From chapter 2 onward, it quotes much more from "Discourses of Brigham Young" (DBY), which is just a compilation of sermons found in the Journal of Discourses.

[Nothing]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2016 at 3:39 PM, omegaseamaster75 said:

 

Their records were not recorded, it gives them moral high ground.  Like you said why record anything at all...but they did. Don't you think that they would have wanted plausible deniability?

 

What's the current narrative?  I always thought that the narrative was in 1890 we stopped the practice of plural marriage, that existing marriages would stay intact but that there would be no future plural sealings (earthly), and that in 1904 with the 2nd declaration the church had to take a hard line with a few rogue GA's. Is this the narrative that we are to believe? If it is, it's not the correct narrative is it? the correct narrative is much more nuanced than that.

Anyways I'll drop it.   

The 1890 Manifesto states

 

Quote

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, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

 

However, plural marriages continued to be solemnized. According to the The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage essay, it was okay because:

Quote

The Manifesto declared President Woodruff’s intention to submit to the laws of the United States. It said nothing about the laws of other nations. Ever since the opening of colonies in Mexico and Canada, Church leaders had performed plural marriages in those countries, and after October 1890, plural marriages continued to be quietly performed there.

That’s actually kind of funny. Anyway, It wasn’t just a few rogues. To see the details, you have to look at footnote 36, which says:

Quote

In all, 8 of 19 members of the Quorum of the Twelve who served between 1890 and 1904 married new plural wives during those years, and these marriages are not represented on the ledger. These members include Brigham Young Jr., George Teasdale, John W. Taylor, Abraham H. Cannon, Marriner W. Merrill, Matthias F. Cowley, Abraham Owen Woodruff, and Rudger Clawson. It is alleged that President Wilford Woodruff married an additional plural wife in 1897, but the historical record makes this unclear...

 

[LeSellers]

On 8/5/2016 at 3:44 PM, Maureen said:

She's not very good at sarcasm then, especially on a forum.

The best sarcasm is that which is very nearly undetected.

Lehi

[Blackmarch]

if polygamy is required then we will be given a chance to prepare for it at some point.

[Nothing]

Quote

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 10:59 AM, Nothing said: My only point is that I can choose to reject some scriptures - and some doctrines, as well - and still be a member of the church. Others can do the same. I don't have to explain my reasoning or justify myself. I bet all of you know active members who reject some scriptures and doctrines and you are not aware of it. I don't want to be contentious about it. That's all. 

On ‎8‎/‎4/‎2016 at 8:58 PM, Carborendum said: I'm so firm on my position I'm going to declare it in a public forum.  But I just don't want to discuss it with strangers. That's why I came to a public forum to declare my positions publicly to a bunch of strangers...

 

I have decided to address this: I have several concerns about D&C 132. I’ll mention just three of them. First, consider this verse:

Quote

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God (D&C 132:26).

If I understand that correctly, this means that if a man and woman get married “and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise,” then they can commit any sin except murder and still be exalted. They can cheat, lie, kidnap, enslave, torture, and rape all they want. They would have to do some time with Satan, but would be exalted after doing all of those things. I don’t see how that is compatible with the Plan of Salvation I have been taught. What about enduring to the end?

Second, the Lord stated:

Quote

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord (Jacob 2:24).

That simply means that David having “many wives and concubines” was abominable to the Lord. Now consider this:

Quote

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord (D&C 132:39).

No conditions are placed on the first statement. It doesn’t say anything like “It was okay for David to have many wives and concubines except Bathsheba”. I don’t see how those two verses could not be contradictory, despite how apologists try to twist it.

TO BE CONTINUED

Edited August 11, 2016 by Nothing

[Nothing]

Third, consider this verse:

Quote

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else (D&C 132:61).

Joseph and other after him definitely did not follow these rules. Emma was not even given the opportunity to consent to Joseph’s marriage to Fanny Alger. Richard L. Bushman wrote that Chauncey Webb “reportedly took Alger in when Emma learned of the marriage” (emphasis added, Rough Stone Rolling, chapter 18).

The faithful LDS apologist Brian C. Hales, who is cited repeatedly in the “Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah” article (https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng), wrote:

Quote

Things didn’t go well for Joseph and Fanny. In an 1872 letter from William McLellin to Joseph Smith, III, McLellin recalled details of an 1847 conversation with Emma Smith where Emma acknowledged that in the spring of 1836 “she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was verily true.” What Emma witnessed is not specified. Whether it was the plural marriage ceremony, an exchange of affection, or even sexual relations we are not told.

Regardless, it is obvious Emma did not believe the ceremony was valid and concluded the relationship was adulterous. Ironically, Oliver Cowdery, who Joseph summoned to diffuse the situation, sided with Emma, discounting the validity of the polygamous marriage and later referring to it as a “dirty, nasty, filthy scrape.” Oliver’s vitriol may have been intensified due to his frustrations from recent leadership changes that diminished his overall importance.

As a consequence of the discovery, Emma immediately “turned Fanny out of the house.” (http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/plural-wives-overview/fanny-alger/)

Verse 61 specifies that a man can take only virgins as plural wives in order for it to not be adulterous. It is well documented that many plural wives were not virgins. I see three possible explanations:

1. The word “virgin” doesn’t really mean virgin. This is almost certainly not possible considering the understood definition of the word now and in the 19th century.

2. There was another revelation or another justification for taking non-virgins as plural wives. I don’t know of any support for this, though.

3. Joseph and others did not follow the rules prescribed by God and were committing adultery.

4. Section 132 is not inspired by God and Joseph and others were committing adultery.

I have to wonder: Did God not want the men to take care of widows?

I fail to hear God's voice in D&C 132. Can anyone help me understand it?