Ensign Article: Polygamy not essential for exaltation

I may have mentioned this before. Many years ago, I sat in a Sunday School class that must have been addressing Church History. The topic of polygamy came up and I don’t recall the nature of the discussion but I do recall one older gentleman (probably in his 70s at the time and this was nearly twenty years ago) becoming agitated and saying, “Listen, we practiced it once. We don’t do it anymore. And that’s all there is to it. Why do we have to keep discussing it?” As I reflected on his outburst, I realized for some of the older Church members born in the 1920s and 1930s, polygamy doesn’t seen as remote. For example, my grandmother’s grandfather was a polygamist and my great-grandfather on my mother’s side was the son of a polygamist. For the later generations, it seems like some antiquated idea that has no reality. I recognize that for some it is still a huge stumbler but for me, it’s just never been a principle I’ve worried about. This passage in the Ensign article about polygamy is very interesting. I doubt it will lay the issue to rest though.

I guess in the frenzy of the holidays I missed both the article and this thread. I think it’s a great article and gave a similar, although less detailed, talk on the subject at one point. I’ll just make one point here which is in the article but not expressly stated: I think in general when latter-day saints here the term “new and everlasting covenant” they automatically and maybe even subconsciously add “of marriage” to the end. The article does a great job of explaining what the new and everlasting covenant really is – and it has little to do with marriage.

It all sounds rather revisionist doctrine, changing what was said in the scriptures or “no, that is not what it means NOW”.

I agree that it is terribly revisionist… yet who is to say that after 150+ years of greater light and knowledge our modern interpretation isn’t the more correct? At least I hope so.

I view this article as claiming and defending one position for which there are multiple valid opinions.

It presents quotes from 2 church leaders from a time after the manifesto saying that celestial marriage is not the same thing as polygamy. Historically these church leaders were fighting against the entrenched idea that polygamy was somehow a higher and more exalting form of marriage.

Then it quotes BRM saying, “Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation” In his controversial and out of print book Mormon Doctrine.

Is this the collective voice of the brethren? Then why do we have to go back to BRM in the doctrinally questionable book Mormon Doctrine for a definitive quote? If “Historical practice is consistent with the doctrine of eternal marriage as explained” in the article, then why do we not have a single quote from a church leader pre-manifestos to back it up? Why would the new seminary teacher’s manual counsel teachers not to speculate about whether or not polygamy may be required in the CK if this was clear and established doctrine?

Again, I really like what the article is trying to do. I view it as similar to Bill Reel’s article defending the interpretation of paying tithing on “surplus.” We need a bigger “tent” to accommodate more alternatives.

OTOH, it bothers me some that the Ensign article seems to pretend that this is the only valid way to interpret the available evidence.

My opinion is that the Brother of Jared story reveals how god works with us, even prophets. Prophets are not going along with a blank slate and god stops them to say “You must do this. It is required. There is no other way.” And the prophet is like…”Whoa…I never thought of that before!”

He does not say “All ships must be lit by clear white rocks and no ships are ever allowed to have windows or torches or it is a sin.”

He does not say “All men and women must accept polygamy to enter into the highest places of the Celestial Kingdom. It is required.”

The process works like this:

1) Prophets or individuals identify problems;

2) Study it out and ask the Lord if your idea to solving the problem is right;

3) Search for responses and signs and feelings, continue to study and choose what feels right is an answer from the Lord. (this is often framed as “The Lord said to me…”)

BoJ: I’m not sure how we’re gonna get across the see unless ships are built like whales to submerge and surface through the gigantic waves. But then there is no light. What do we do?

Lord: So…Mahonri Moriancumer…what’s your idea?

BoJ: Well…how about you touch stones and they light up so we don’t use fire and burn down the barges?

Lord: Sure.

BoJ: Listen up everyone, we’re all going in these funky ships and the Lord has said we need to use these stones he touched for light!

People: Let’s write this story down….(scribble Ether 2-3, Moroni compile in the abridged version, Joseph Smith sees it in a peep stone, Oliver Cowdery writes it in King James version style writing, missionaries prepare lessons from scriptures)…and from this we know God has a body with a finger, we look like him…there is the proof about God.

Lord: Well…that’s not exactly how it happened…but you got the gist of it. Me and my finger approve. Carry on.

I would think Polygamy for Abraham and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young was the same approach of them thinking about it and wondering how to solve a problem. It was not commanded of the Lord (despite how it is recorded in the scriptures which comes from the prophet framing how the revelation is interpreted by them). It is something Abraham and Joseph were thinking about for a problem they saw or a question they had for whatever reason they were thinking about it, and then felt the Lord approved it. This is not to suggest I think prophets were intentionally manipulative and diabolical (but I don’t rule out natural tendencies occupy their minds…these don’t have to be icky…it doesn’t have to be about young wives or control…but it may be on their minds for some reason that becomes icky or controlling later when they can’t actually do what they thought was a good idea without messing it up). I believe they are just trying to do what they think God is telling them about things they are taking to the Lord for answers. I believe they get it wrong sometimes. And like Elder Holland says…the Lord allows them to get it wrong to learn.

Having the Lord approve it and requiring it are very different things and I think this Ensign article is saying that also…it isn’t required…it was allowed (according to some prophets). It is now not allowed by some prophets when there are different circumstances.

Meanwhile God watches as we approach problems and ask him about it. He isn’t going down requiring anyone do anything. I’m not sure he cares about specifics on how we get there…he just wants us to learn to become who we should become and be able to return to be like him when we arrive.

I apply that approach to all interactions with God and man. I am glad what the ensign says confirms my feelings on it. Polygamy is not required, thank God.

It feels to me that your philosophy you espouse and the church are not compatible and are at odds with each other.

I hear you. And I think that is fair to say. It is a personal thing. It really comes down to that, and considering what you hear, while developing personal testimonies.

Here is what they say word for word:

There is much that we do not know about life in the hereafter; however, we do know that receiving and abiding within the new and everlasting covenant is necessary to inherit eternal life. We also know that for such, the “same sociality which exists among us here”—in mortality—“will exist among us there”—in the afterlife—“only it will be coupled with eternal glory.”

I just focus on the first part I underlined and bolded.

For the “however…” part…I ask…”How do we know that?”

That is part of the conversion process. Asking how we know.

The response I get from different people is different. What I hear them say in response is what I feel they are feeling from their perspectives, with limited knowledge. It is good stuff for me to hear and me to consider.

Perhaps the new and everlasting covenant is required. That’s fine. But how they define that covenant now seems to be different than how they did 120 years ago. And, it is possible it will be different in 120 years from now.

So…when I truly believe the first part…

There is much that we do not know about life in the hereafter…

I can feel compatibility with my views and what I hear the church teaching.

We simply don’t know. And they can claim “but…we do know this…” and yet they are stuck first having the qualifier that we really don’t know. Then it just becomes a stand off. They believe they know some things while they admit not all, and I believe we don’t know as much as they think they know. There is no resolution to that standoff. It just is that way…and so…let’s go focus on loving and helping people because that is what matters, regardless of the stuff we don’t know.

We are not at odds on the importance of love and service. That is the compatible teaching.

Thanks Heber for taking the time to explain. The last week+ has just felt like any progress towards moving into Fowler’s stage 5 has relapsed back square into stage 4. I can’t quite figure out why I can’t even have some of the serenity of stage 5 that I had started to feel more and more.

“Here is the VERY specific way that you must do and not do certain things. If you do not follow this exactly, God is going to be upset with you and you probably are not going to make it back to him.”

I admit this is the type of talk that gets me frustrated, it paints God as some narrow being. The God I know wants us to spread our wings, he wants us to think and experiment and learn through experience. The two “L” words cover our purpose: Learn and Love. An all wise and loving Eternal father will want his children to grow and mature into productive, responsible adults, not pass some intricate test of obedience to return home and live in the basement.

I love this.