- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am a newly questioning member of the forum, I’ll post an introduction soon. I have some questions I am struggling with, but I don’t want to post on NOM because the angry/poisonous atmosphere seems to just find ways of tearing down the church. I want to hear constructive answers from varying perspectives, but which are fully informed by an accurate view of history, rather than the official church response. My first question is regarding D&C 132.
DW tells me that “celestial marriage” was a code word during the times of JS to mean polygamy, but to avoid having to admit it to opponents of the church/opponents of polygamy.
It seems to me that the promise in D&C 132:19 that as long as a couple enter into a Celestial marriage nothing can pull them apart, except one of them commit murder, may have actually been specifically referring to polygamous relationships. DW showed me several sources where JS convinced women to marry him by promising them that it would guarantee their salvation (and even the salvation of their entire family). These promises seem very similar to that in D&C 132. This puts me in a bit of an intellectual bind.
How do you interpret this scripture? Does it refer to current temple marriages, or is it specifically referring to polygamy? What does this verse mean to you?
I’m trying to understand 132 from an “original intent” perspective. Was it originally intended to refer to only polygomous relationships, but the church has since co-opted/twisted its original meaning? Under “original intent” could I infer the verse to apply to a monogomous marriage? If I traveled back in time and tried to apply it to my monogomous relationship, would I have been rebuked because I was misinterpretting the verse?
Hi MIster Curie I’m happy that you asked this question since I used it for my Youth Gospel Doctrine class just two weeks ago and got quite involved with it.
First a principle of interpretation that is very true for the Book of Mormon and also for the D&C: read what the scripture actually says not what people say about the scripture. This is very important in the BofM where we have arguments over the idea that the BofM people roamed all over North and South America whereas when you read the book itself, carefully, you see that they are walking everywhere and that the extent of their domain is perhaps 400 miles square if that.
So the key verse in question:
(D&C 132:19)
Quote:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry
a wifeThis verse clearly says “a wife”, which is one, 1, uno, a single wife. That isn’t code, in my opinion, for plural marriage, it means exactly what it says. Yes, plural marriage is certainly discussed in D&C 132 and it is also approved when the Lord commands it.
I would really like to know about the sources that your DW is using for Joseph using eternal marriage as a threat in some of his proposals. It may well be present but I haven’t seen it anywhere myself but I haven’t gone looking all that hard, at the moment I am more or less relying on Richard Bushman.
But let me say that Joseph Smith and his polygamous proposals are amongst my own most difficult issues with the history of the Church. I do have a testimony of Joseph as a prophet and I can handle a messy Joseph the prophet who makes mistakes and is compulsive about carrying out what the Lord commands him to do BUT BUT BUT, wasn’t it entirely clear to anyone that multiple proposals to multiple women was bound to in the end get people upset, edgey and wanting to run from the Church??? In its simplest terms, “How could he be so polically studid in the toxic environment in which the Saints lived in Missouri and Illinois???” There, that’s my issue but I think it is very clear that D&C 132 is an inspired section and that eternal marriage between one man and one woman is the key ordinance to open up the Celestial Kingdom.
Lots more to talk about but this post is long enough for right now.
Oh..Oh..Oh…..can I go? 
First of all I need to submit the standard disclaimer….
I describe myself as a Fundamentalist so please consider that while considering my opinion.
To clarify terms, Fundamentalists refer to a sanctified sealing of more than one woman to a man as “celestial plural marriage”. For the same relationship where the sealing is without proper authority OR the participants aren’t living the gospel in other ways, it would be referred to just like the secular world (and the current Church) refers to it….”polygamy”, “bigamy”, etc.
To avoid a bunch of cut & paste, that you may not care to see anyway…I’ll just post a link that explains my beliefs:
http://mormonfundamentalism.org/guides/is-plural-celestial-marriage-essential/ I believe your question is to the original intent of the revelation…..IMHO….yes….it was absolutely a revelation to prepare the Church as a whole for the ushering in of celestial plural marriage as the new and everlasting covenant.
In our opinion, the manifesto took the requirement out of the hands (and off the backs) of the Church and put the practice back in the hands of select people since it is an “everlasting” covenant, and will never be taken from the earth again.
Of course, the current Church opinion is that there will somehow be “monogamous” gods. I think you will find that the teachings of the early prophets of this dispensation never indicate that…to the contrary….many teachings indicate that plural wives are the order of Heaven. However, since the manifesto, monogamous temple sealings have somehow came to represent celestial marriage and the new and everlasting covenant.
With respect to the Church, what else could they do? They just couldn’t pretend that plural marriage was never a requirement. There is only so far that you can twist Sect. 132. The early saints had every right to democraticly (sp?) elect not to live it but that only erases it as a law of the Church….it doesn’t/can’t erase it as a law of the priesthood.
My opinion only….
Opinions will vary wildly….
Disregard at will….
@Bill, RSR by Bushman on page 439,3rd full paragrah states:
Joseph told a prospective wife that submitting to plural marriage would “ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household. & all your kindred.” A father who gave his daughter to the Prophet as a plural wife was assured hat the marriage “shall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all your house both old and young.”
This sounds similar to 132:19 to me,but obviously he wasn’t quoting the scripture at them.
Any chance that the singular wife is a change made to D&C since it was written. What is a good source to see what changes have been introduced into D&C over time?
Also, the phrase “abide in my covenant” in 132:19 is currently interpreted by the church to mean essentially “endure to the end” (you have to get sealed in the temple and then endure to the end to have eternal life), however, couldn’t it as easily be construed to mean you must remain Celestially married (e.g. no divorce) in order to obtain the promised blessings, since it says you can do anything other than murder someone and still obtain exaltation. This interpretation would be more in line with the things JS is quoted as telling his prospective wives. What do you think Bruce? What is the fundamentalist position on “abide in my covenant”? Endure to the end or stay married?
Thanks for the responses. While I don’t personally have fundamentalist leanings, I think the fundamentalist viewpoint may be the best representation of what the church felt about 132 when it was given, being the most accurate interpretation of “original intent”. I look forward to hearing what others think.
Hi MisterC, welcome! My personal interpretation of “original intent”, taking into account all that I have read relating to the subject from early sources and trying to get a feel for the way they actually interpreted it — is pretty similar to Bruce on this one.
My disclaimer is I could probably be persuaded that there was in fact a “dual” lesson here: 1) The Exalting nature of Eternal marriage (monogamous or plural), and 2) The FURTHER exalting nature of plural marriage (again, as originally taught).
I do think when they talked about Celestial marriage as a requirement to enter the highest degree of the CK they understood “celestial marriage” as “celestial plural marriage”, at least that’s what I get from Brigham Young and some others.
On the other hand, I think it could be argued that they had that understanding because at the time that was their commandment. I think the point could be made that today we’re under a different law so our current interpretation is justified – and right for us today.
Hope this helps?
MisterCurie wrote:My first question is regarding D&C 132.
DW tells me that “celestial marriage” was a code word during the times of JS to mean polygamy, but to avoid having to admit it to opponents of the church/opponents of polygamy.
Yes, I agree. The minute Hyrum heard of ‘eternal marriage/celestial marriage/whatever-they-used-for-the-label-at-the-time’, he knew it implied polygamy. Why? Because he had lost his first wife in 1837 and was now on to his second. So, eternal marriage meant two wives, defacto.
It was Heber J. Grant that redefined ‘celestial marriage’ to mean ‘eternal marriage’, I believe.
MisterCurie wrote:It seems to me that the promise in D&C 132:19 that as long as a couple enter into a Celestial marriage nothing can pull them apart, except one of them commit murder, may have actually been specifically referring to polygamous relationships. DW showed me several sources where JS convinced women to marry him by promising them that it would guarantee their salvation (and even the salvation of their entire family). These promises seem very similar to that in D&C 132. This puts me in a bit of an intellectual bind.
My opinion is that it had something to do with the “fulness” of the new & everlasting covenant, and that ‘celestial marriage’ was only one component of that ‘fulness’. Verses 6, 19 and 26 are really key to me realizing that it all had to do with the Second Anointing, which brings with it the fulness of the Melchizidek priesthood, which includes the power to bind on earth and in heaven.
But we don’t talk about that much anymore. If you know of it, then certain key phrases really leap out at you.
MisterCurie wrote:I’m trying to understand 132 from an “original intent” perspective. Was it originally intended to refer to only polygomous relationships, but the church has since co-opted/twisted its original meaning? Under “original intent” could I infer the verse to apply to a monogomous marriage? If I traveled back in time and tried to apply it to my monogomous relationship, would I have been rebuked because I was misinterpretting the verse?
Most likely.HiJolly
Mister Curie, wow you can sure stir stuff up! This is just a first pass at looking for possible changes. Section 132 was not published in the D&C until 1876 when Orson Pratt added 26 new revelations and put the sections into verses and added the first footnotes. We have very good information as to the time when the revelations was written out in July of 1843 primarily to try and convince Emma that plural marriage was OK (Hyrum was sure it would work and Joseph was skeptical as it turned out both were right, Emma did agree for at least a short time and then reverted to her opposition). In was published in 1852 in Salt Lake and read and accepted at a general conference making the practice finally public knowledge.
I can’t find any references to changes in the text so far but that doesn’t mean it didn’t occur. I will keep looking.
It is true that early leaders in the Church did preach that plural marriage was essential to full exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom but they were also completely certain that every Native American was a Lamanite as well and preached that. I still say we take that scripture just like it is written “a wife” is the key family unit.
Thanks for the Richard Bushman quote I guess I better get back and reread the stuff, however I think even that quote clearly shows that Joseph was not so much interested in getting a new wife but rather in bonding and sealing an entire family to him in some celestial way. My personal opinion is that he was certainly “driven” by Heavenly Father to make the alliances he made because no man would try to go against Emmas’s wishes for any other reason. He loved her, there is no question of that, and though he may have had other plural marriages none of them were anything we would contemplate as marriages they were more like negotiated alliances to insure some Clestial goals that we will only learn about in the Millenium.
Welcome, MisterCurie. I look forward to your posts with interest 
Wow, I feel quite privileged to be talking to the great scientists Madam and Mister Curie! 😆 Quote:I think the fundamentalist viewpoint may be the best representation of what the church felt about 132 when it was given, being the most accurate interpretation of “original intent”.
I appreciate Bruce in Montana, as I think his fundamentalist viewpoint is a valuable addition to this site. I will say that he and I disagree on the subject of polygamy. In my studies of polygamy, I think it is important to distinguish what you mean by “the church.” Frankly, there was much disagreement among the members about this. The First Presidency (William Law and Sidney Rigdon) was opposed to polygamy. The publishers of the Nauvoo Expositor were made up of the First Presidency (William Law and his brother). Thomas Marsh, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and many other prominent Mormons were uncomfortable with the practice, if not downright opposed to it. The general church membership was greatly divided about it as well in the Nauvoo period of the 1840’s.
I just don’t think it is sustainable. In order for it to be sustainable, there will have to be a ratio of at minimum 2 women for every man. There are several instances in church history that showed that as soon as girls were hitting puberty, they were snatched up as polygamist wives. When you have someone like JS and BY taking 30+ wives, it just doesn’t seem like a rational plan to me. I just don’t think that in heaven they women will outnumber the men 2:1 or 30:1. Adam had 1 wife, Eve, and I think that’s the way God intended it.
I did a couple posts on polygamy myself. You might want to check out
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/05/17/my-perspective-on-polygamy/ I also did a post on Bushman’s RSR regarding polygamy at
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/06/14/bushmans-perspective-on-polygamy-alger-and-snow/ So, original intent is an interesting question. Fundamentalists, such as Bruce, BY, JS, felt it was inspired. Yet prominent Mormons such as Emma, Sidney, Oliver, and William Law, William Marks (SP in Nauvoo), and Edward Partridge (Bishop in Nauvoo) didn’t. Many of these prominent Mormons joined the RLDS church. In Sidney’s case, he started his own church in Pittsburgh.
D&C 132 tries to justify polygamy by using David, Solomon, and Abraham. I think verse 19 refers specifically to David, who killed Uriah to get Bathsheba. Abraham married the slave Hagar and then sent her and Ishmael in the desert where they nearly died. Solomon married countless non-Jewish wives (of his 700 wives and 300 concubines) because of political expediency. You can’t tell me that Solomon’s “non-member” wives were sealed to him–the scriptures say these wives turned his heart away from Jehovah. As such, I don’t think David, Solomon, or Abraham are role models for polygamy. I don’t believe God wants us to have 1000:1 ratio of women to men.
Supposedly an angel threatened Joseph with a sword if he did not obey. This angelic visit is diametrically opposed to the peace of the First Vision, though it does seem to sound like the Devil attacking Joseph just prior to the vision, JSH 1:15
Quote:I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
I believe Joseph was a prophet, but I believe he was deceived on the polygamy issue.
I did not ghostwrite the previous post. But I could have. The whole plyg math thingie, hats off to Bruce, and Joseph Smith roundup is exactly as I see it all. mormonheretic wrote:I believe Joseph was a prophet, but I believe he was deceived on the polygamy issue.
I concur in part with this – I think that if Joseph
wasa true prophet (my verdict is still out on this), that he was deceived on this issue. I specifically think of exactly what MormonHeretic brought up, about the difference between the “angel with a sword” vision and his First Vision. [speculation]
I do not believe it is outside the realm of possibility that JS received a true vision of the heavens, and saw something that could not be explained in mortal words, whereby gods and goddesses work closely together to create worlds and spirits. In trying to understand this vision, the closest he could come to was something approaching polygamy. I think he was deceived after the initial true vision, by a false angel, false vision, who knows what, that lead him to connect that vision of the eternities with a restoration of polygamy on the earth. And, viola! Polygamy was born.
[/speculation]
In my opinion, there are far too many questions unanswered on this topic, and far too few revelations from the Heavens to clarify this, for me to be confident one way or the other. I lean towards the position that MH expressed, doing the math and my general feeling of what that seems to make me think about differences between males and females in the eternities which smack of inequality that I can’t reconcile, that I don’t “feel” right about the fact that polygamy is a requirement for everyone in the highest degree of the CK. Adam and his children paired off, Jacob in the Book of Mormon, Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness but nothing on celestial plural marriage, etc etc etc.
Having said that, it seems the “intent” of D&C 132 was introducing plural marriage, but for some specific purpose in God’s mind which we cannot assume to know, and done at a specific time for some reasons that aren’t clarified with further revelation on the subject. It was taught to some, but not all. It was done in secrecy for a time. It was later discontinued by those receiving revelation by God. Something in all of this has to lead to someone was not receiving “correct” revelation because it does not all tie together neatly. But we have no clarification on it.
Without definitive clarification, I must assume:
1) It doesn’t matter to God or else He would send new revelations to explain it;
2) The manifesto was true revelation and the current teachings of celestial monogomous marriage are acceptable to God, so that is our answer;
3) BY and fundamentalists have it right, and since today’s society won’t allow the practice, the heavens are closed to further explanation because we aren’t righteous enough to receive it;
4) The heavens are closed on the subject in order to test us if we will accept things on faith still waiting for the further light and knowledge to clarify D&C132 some time in the future. Until then, we just don’t know.
Like I said, so many questions, and not enough clarification. So I follow my conscience on this subject, with reservation. In fact, the process of early leaders claiming one thing definitively, and later leaders changing the stance so now it is “excommunication” is troubling to me. It would be nice if revelation was given, and from then on, everyone knew exactly what that meant. But I believe this topic more than any other casts doubt on Joseph’s endurance as prophet, because I do think the intent of D&C132 at the time was “plural marriage”, and therefore all my other concerns raised above make me wonder about the process of revelation all together.
MadamCurie wrote:[speculation]
I do not believe it is outside the realm of possibility that JS received a true vision of the heavens, and saw something that could not be explained in mortal words, whereby gods and goddesses work closely together to create worlds and spirits. In trying to understand this vision, the closest he could come to was something approaching polygamy. I think he was deceived after the initial true vision, by a false angel, false vision, who knows what, that lead him to connect that vision of the eternities with a restoration of polygamy on the earth. And, viola! Polygamy was born.
[/speculation]
Madam, I hear ya on this…and the Joseph slipping up is certainly a plausible explanation.However, the practice really got rolling when BY and John Taylor brought it out into the daylight and put it into practice. Joseph was very hesitant to go public with it. He never denied that it was a difficult thing the Lord was asking, but he never taught it in the mainstream church like the others. In fact, he was often condemning others who were doing it without his authority to do so.
Because of that, doesn’t it seem like it goes beyond just Joseph. When he died, others taught it confidently when they had keys to revelation and could have let this go away quietly. So therefore, all the others must have been deceived like Joseph, or more so, because they were openly teaching it.
Isn’t it possible Joseph was not decieved but practicing it more correctly, teaching it only to a select few and controlling it by only the prophet allowing it at certain times, and the real deception was BY and JT and others making it mainstream and corrupting the practice?
I think too many people confuse the effort to try to figure out the principle that underlies plural marriage and the differing attempts to put that principle into practice. Imo, the principle (not to be confused with “The Principle”) is that there is an allowance made in the eternities for men and women to be “sealed” to multiple people they have loved deeply in this life. If my wife were to die tomorrow, I’m not sure I would be able to live as a single adult the rest of my life – and I’m not sure I would want my youngest children (especially) to not have a mother. If I never met someone else with whom I could fall deeply in love, I would not remarry; if I found someone with whom I would fall deeply in love, I would remarry – and I would want to spend eternity with both my new wife AND my current wife.
The issue, imo, is that these arrangments IN MORTALITY, of necessity, MUST include a sexual component that makes it extremely hard to accept for most people. I’m going to say this a bit facetiously, but if babies were craeted in a test tube, by a group of people working together – and if intimacy did not include a sexual component, how repulsive would plural marriage really be? Who really would care much if a man OR woman had more than one spouse – or what sexual orientation they were – or even what age they were?
Since I believe in spiritual creation through a council of the gods (NOT through a process that involves sexual relationships and pregnancy – really, the image of eternal pregnacy is ludicrous to me), “eternal plural marriage” doesn’t bother me in the slightest – as long as I get to live and create alongside the woman who now is my wife in a deeply intimate and loving, sealed relationship.
Bill Atkinson wrote:
This is just a first pass at looking for possible changes. Section 132 was not published in the D&C until 1876 when Orson Pratt added 26 new revelations and put the sections into verses and added the first footnotes. We have very good information as to the time when the revelations was written out in July of 1843 primarily to try and convince Emma that plural marriage was OK (Hyrum was sure it would work and Joseph was skeptical as it turned out both were right, Emma did agree for at least a short time and then reverted to her opposition). In was published in 1852 in Salt Lake and read and accepted at a general conference making the practice finally public knowledge.
Do you mind providing a reference for the information on Hyrum and Joseph thinking the revelation would convince Emma regarding plural marriage?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.