Will we ever get to the bottom of PM??

IF…

If PM was a true revealed principle …

we read its purpose to:

1. build seed

2. with another virgin who is not married

3. ONLY if wife #1 gives her permission (and if she doesn’t, oh well…do it anyway).

IF PM was done correctly, JS:

1. Would have had children with his sex partners

2. would NOT have married other married women

3. Would NOT have been secretive about who he bedded.

I am leaning toward believing section 132 is not a real revelation.

so why was it revealed only to some…when it is clear that ALL men must bed other women in order to gain exaltation?

Any quote saying that polygamy is required to go to the Celestial Kingdom does not apply to us. MAYBE it applied to people in the 1800s. If so, one only had to accept the doctrine so as not to oppose the prophet, and practicing it was not required. I’m not sure about the history, but I think most LDS did not practice it. Here are a couple quotes from Wilford Woodruff:

I attended the school of the prophets. Brother John Holeman made a long speech upon the subject of Poligamy. He Contended that no person Could have a Celestial glory unless He had a plurality of wives. Speeches were made By L. E. Harrington O Pratt Erastus Snow, D Evans J. F. Smith Lorenzo Young. Presidet Young said there would be men saved in the Celestial Kingdom of God with one wife with Many wives & with No wife at all.

Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 12 February 1870

Then Presidt Young spoke 58 Minuts. He said a Man may Embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart & not take the Second wife & be justified before the Lord.

-Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 24 September 1871

Back to your post:

IF, however, PM is NOT a true principle (and I suspect that it was not), then … again, why were these leaders allowed to continue on for so long?

If it wasn’t right to practice, then it would be one of many instances where Heavenly Father sat back shaking his head, perhaps saying “I love my children, but they sure do stupid things. They will get it right some day.” Like MH said up there, God puts up with a lot. I have learned for myself that “a prophet can’t lead us astray” is simply not doctrine. The church condemned the practice of denying the Priesthood and temple blessings to people of African descent and condemned any racist remark made by previous prophets and apostles. At least that’s what I understand from this statement: “We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.”

I know that the RLDS don’t believe in PM, and if they are right…well, their numbers speak volumes about their “correctness”…but the mainstream LDS church has numbers growing every day…which, to me, equates “right”…I vacillate back and forth… The sheer success of our church organization makes me think… “they can’t ALL be wrong” What is it that draws people in?

Yes, the RLDS/CoC church is very small, but our church isn’t very big.

Is this questioning thing that we are experiencing here on this forum part of Satan’s plan to draw us away from the quiet peace that TBM’s feel?

Honestly, I sometimes think I would be better off if I had not questioned some things. If you can back out of questioning and have peace as a “TBM”, then I would not discourage you from doing so. For me, I feel a need to get all of the issues on the table and deal with them now instead of later. Maybe Satan leads some people to question certain things. I believe he will do anything to break up peace and he kicks me when I’m down.

So, if the LDS church has the restored gospel…is is ALL true? Is PM really true? If so, I’m out.

If it’s NOT true, then what else isn’t true? Do we dare dissect this religion under such a large magnifying glass?

If PM is NOT part of the restored gospel, then what IS?

The church is sort of a delivery system for the restored Gospel. ALL of the gospel is true, but not all of the practices and policies of the people of the church are true. I think Jesus gave the blueprint for His church to Joseph Smith and granted him authority to build it. Joseph and those who came after him have attempted to build it. Because we are all human, the church has not been built to exact specifications, but the contract with the Lord is still in force. A lot of things than have been taught by leaders are not true. However, I still believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet to his dying day. The Priesthood is still in the church. Jesus Christ is still my Savior and His gospel of repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost is alive and well in the church.

I was disillusioned because I previously believed in illusions. I think it’s not enough to say prophets are not infallible, it’s important to understand they really make mistakes. Some of them can be serious mistakes.

Hi, QuestionAbound – Here’s what I believe lately: Polygamy and polyandry were mistakes. The church can still “be true” in a redefined sense. Section 132 will be removed or modified at some point. I don’t see what we’re waiting for. Do many of us know people who would be interested in a church that espouses polygamy? Being comfortable with my own thoughts is a huge relief.

…IF, however, PM is NOT a true principle (and I suspect that it was not), then … again, why were these leaders allowed to continue on for so long?

In a word, agency. I don’t believe it is part of the Lord’s plan to force people into compliance. …even church leaders.

I also often think of William Marks’ words on this subject. He said Joseph told him shortly before his death that he had been wrong and the practice must be put down or it would destroy the church. In hindsight that statement is one of the most prophetic ever made.

Isn’t D&C 132 the only place the revelation about eternal marriage is found?

I understand eternal marriage to be different from plural marriage.

If D&C 132 were removed, would that, in effect, remove the ideology of an eternal family unit?

If D&C 132 were just modified, wouldn’t some naysayers cry “foul”…to pick and choose what is modified is akin to being selective about which commandments we keep.

We could keep portions of section 132 or replace it with The Family: A Proclamation to the World. There will always be people crying “foul” over one thing or another, so I don’t worry about that.

There is a history of changing the D&C: In 1876, section 101 was replaced by section 132 and Lectures on Faith was removed in 1921.

We believe in continuing revelation, so I think it should be acceptable to update the D&C.

We could keep portions of section 132 or replace it with The Family: A Proclamation to the World. There will always be people crying “foul” over one thing or another, so I don’t worry about that.

There is a history of changing the D&C: In 1876, section 101 was replaced by section 132 and Lectures on Faith was removed in 1921.

We believe in continuing revelation, so I think it should be acceptable to update the D&C.

I agree, there will always be hardliners and they will take this hard. If our church has more people in it that would be devastated by the thought that sometimes JS was feeling his way forward and experimenting with inspired principles than the amount of people that would be relieved to learn that our church no longer believes in polygamy as an eternal principle – then I would take that as a sad state of affairs.

The bottom line is that we should do whatever is right.

I couldn’t agree more.

“Do what is right; let the consequence follow.”

Thanks everyone. Lots to respond to.

First, I only put “PM” because it was quicker.

Now then…perhaps I am starting to feel a “release” as I consider that section 132 is incorrect/non-inspired/wrong, etc.

However…the verbage is weighing on my mind.

So, let’s say that Joseph Smith was “experimenting” with revealed truths. It seems that toying with the heart of his wife would be a dangerous game to play. :eh: If toying with it, then why would the entire section read as though the Lord himself were dictating the passage? Surely Joseph Smith didn’t fabricate the whole section…did he? Although, to find out that the “revelation” was pulled from a desk drawer after his death is of note…and a sour note at that.

Hypothetical mind games are horrible…but if the Lord’s house is a house of order, then surely we can find the clarity for which our hearts yearn.

When I was at my point of despair over this…and in tears…asking why, if polygamy was “legal” in heaven, was it so one-sided? Why can’t the women love whomever they choose? You know…all of those questions that run through our minds. And, I’m telling you…the words that came into my mind were, “Suffer it to be so now.”

That right there was like the balm of Gilead. I stopped crying. I stopped breathing for a minute. I was soothed.

I am still “soothed” to a point, but it helps to find wonderful people like you who have gone down this road before…who can succor people like me…who aren’t angry or hostile or bitter.

I am so appreciative of your comments…all of them. To think that MAYBE…just maybe the mortal men who have led this church may have made some mistakes…and that we can follow what our hearts tells us is liberating.

Thank you!