- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
mom3 wrote:
Don’t throw rocks – but I have some “get it” with the eternal idea of polygamy.
Hear me out.
I am not in support of the new lesson – what I see as a correct idea in eternity is that people like Abraham, Jacob, Moses – the old testament guys – who lived in a time and society that had multiple wives – will be eligible for celestial glory (if there is such a thing).
However, Adam only had Eve. Joseph only had Mary. Boaz only had Ruth. I only need one.
As for the lesson – I too am ill – addressing that polygamy happened is long overdue. Making it a future recurring doctrine is scary.
No rocks necessary.
I have no problem with the possibility of PM
existingin the CK. I do however have a big problem with the possibility that PM might be a requirementfor the CK – just like baptism. Yes, it is true that the new and everlasting covenant of marriage or celestial marriage was understood in the pioneer days to be PM.
Yes, it is also true that church leaders up to and including the prophet in those days had said that it was required (I believe 3 wives was the magic number). Some even speculated why multiple wives might be necessary (something about gestational periods for peopling innumerable words).
But none of that makes it binding upon me, right? Apparently we don’t know.
The vast majority of Mormon men don’t want polygamy, either. Even when it was in full swing back in the day, the majority of men weren’t involved. There are men AND women who would participate consensually, but they are the small minority in first-world, modern societies. The Church is in a position where it can’t throw polygamy under the bus completely. I understand and am okay with that, mostly, as I’ve said in other threads, because I know polygamists (men and women) who chose without pressure of any kind to live that way and I know men and women who have had multiple spouses in this life, loved them equally and simply couldn’t choose if forced to do so. If I claim the privilege to believe as I choose to believe, I have to grant them that same privilege, let them want to marry how or whom they may.
I’m okay with “we don’t know” about the next life – only because I want that to be pretty much the answer about almost everything dealing with the next life. I want the Church to stick with only a couple of core things about the next life: theosis and that it’s all in God’s hands. I believe some things are “sealed” to us (meaning “shut”), and the exact nature of the next life is one of those things. I believe all of our attempts to understand and teach about it are speculative in nature, beyond the core idea that we are children of loving parents. All the rest is the best we can do to imagine the details – and I don’t mean that negatively.
My ideal would be something as simple as,
Quote:“People have participated in various forms of marriage throughout history, based on their beliefs at the time. There is no divine command that one particular form will be the eternal standard, and we have faith that God will allow all of his children to be happy and joyful throughout eternity. Exactly how that will occur for each individual is in God’s hands, and he will honor the righteous desires of our hearts.”
I know that won’t happen exactly as worded above, since it would tacitly accept gay marriage as a possibility (and I wouldn’t want exceptions written into the wording – wanting it as broadly worded as possible). Lacking that kind of comprehensive statement, “
We don’t know, but we believe God will honor the desires of his children to guarantee them happiness,” would work for me. Quote:
Begin by explaining that while Joseph Smith was working on the inspired translation of the Old Testament in 1831, he read about some of the ancient prophets practicing plural marriage (also called polygamy). Under this practice, one man is married to more than one living wife. The Prophet studied the scriptures, pondered what he learned, and eventually took his questions about plural marriage to Heavenly Father in prayer.
This line is trotted out all time and it bugs me. There’s no 1831 evidence that he did have any revelation on plural marriage.
The statement above is carefully and technically correct because it implies that PM had been revealed from 1831.
The section header goes further saying:
Quote:
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. (Doctrine and Covenants, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132)
The earliest claim for 1831 was from letters between BY and (I think) Willard Richards in 1860s Utah.
Plural marriage is a mess. It’s a rabbit hole that seems to be endless.
On the other hand…
I have no memory of ever being taught about polygamy at seminary or youth Sunday school. It was like it never happened.
In some ways I’m glad they have a lesson that directly addresses and admits it, even though I don’t like the tone of the lesson very much.
David T at mormondialogue wrote:
1. It acknowledges and covers the different accounts of the First Vision2. There is a complete lesson devoted to Plural Marriage
3. There is a lesson on the Utah War and the Mountain Meadows Massacre
4. A Chapter on Pearl of Great Price, which briefly addresses the dating of the Book of Abraham papyri. It notes that the ultimate translation process for both Abraham and Moses is unknown.
5. In the lesson on OD1, the need for the Second Manifesto of 1904 is noted.
6. Lesson on OD2, begins with the introduction to the 2013 edition.Includes the line, “Point out the line that states, “Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.” Ensure that students understand that while some people may suggest reasons why males of African descent were not ordained to the priesthood for a time, those reasons may not be accurate. The statement just read represents the official position of the Church.” The lesson ends with , “Point out that students may be asked why the Church did not ordain men of African descent to the priesthood for a time. Invite them to consider how they might answer this question. Affirm that it is appropriate to explain to others that we do not know why the priesthood restriction began” – – also is a not to teachers to keep updated, don’t rely on old explanations, and included Elder McConkioes, “forget everything I said” quote. – it also directs the reader to the “Race and the Priesthood” topic on lds.org.
7. Lesson on ‘Hastening the work of salvation”.
8. Lesson on The Family: A Proclamation to the World
9. On the JST, “Around the fall of 1830, Joseph Smith was commanded by the Lord to translate the Bible. He
did not translate the Bible from one language to another; nor did he have an original biblical manuscript to work from. Instead, Joseph would read and study passages from the King James Version of the Bible and then make corrections and additions as inspired by the Holy Ghost. Thus, the translation was more of an inspired revision than a traditional translation.”
10. In reference to D&C 77, “(It may be helpful to explain that the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation.)”
I did not see anything particularly on Book of Mormon translation methods as I had expected – although I may have simply missed it. I was skimming!
We’ve been crying out for the church to be more open with its history. We probably have to accept that they are not going to teach it the way we would like. But at least they’re not hiding it any more.
Ann, much as I wish they had, the church has never renounced polygamy. The oft-quoted “it’s not doctrinal” from GBH was in reference to the FLDS polygamy.
I’m actually OK with the “We don’t know” answer. I think it shows we don’t know everything, and much of what we do “know” about the afterlife is really speculation. Since I’m pretty sure no prophet has received actual revelation since Joseph Smith (and not everything in D&C is really revelation), I understand why the current 15 prophets don’t ask. I would rather they say they don’t know than to add more supposition and speculation. In this particular case (polygamy) I think it’s a cop out, but as Curtis points out the church really can’t just throw polygamy out at this point because it’s too ingrained in the doctrine. DISCLAIMER: I do not believe in or support polygamy as a church doctrine and I do wish the church could and would disavow it completely, and I would like nothing more than if Pres. Monson stood up in April and said “Thus saith the Lord….” Oh, and I’m one of those many men who believe one wife is plenty.
Ugh, this is so disgusting. Of course it is good for them to know the church practiced polygamy so they don’t get shocked with it later, but I wouldn’t want my kids to hear this lesson in seminary where it will not be presented the way I will teach it, which is that its evil and wrong and not from God. And the lesson includes the verse about how God gives multiple virgins to men. So that’s nice to teach our young women. And they kind of brush past the fact that if Emma wouldn’t accept this, she would be destroyed. And the fact that on her deathbed Emma denied that Joseph ever had other wives. Doesn’t sound like she willingly accepted the commandment. As the lesson implies.
I really hate the part where it describes why Joseph prayed about it and got the “revelation”. There are lots of weird things in the Bible, why didn’t he pray to know if he should stone people for adultery? Doesn’t add up. Plus, the example of Sarah giving Hagar to Abraham, that wasn’t God directing it, it was Sarah not having faith that God would give them children as he promised. Didn’t work out too well for them either, did it?
While it might be a step forward to even acknowledge that polygamy existed, the tone might overweigh that positive. I do know a couple of girls in my ward who were told about polygamy at church and refused to acknowledge that a true church like ours could ever possibly participate in polygamy. They honestly thought the adult who talked about it in the lesson was outright lying. I feel for them when they come to grips with reality. Perhaps that supports having the lesson. The problem I have with the lesson as written is that it’s tone deaf. My belief is that 19th century LDS polygamy was not only a fantastically bad decision, but also possibly a systemic crime of sexual predation and coercion. Taking the wrong tone with those topics and impressionable youth might in fact be worse than ignoring it.
mackay11 wrote:
I have no memory of ever being taught about polygamy at seminary or youth Sunday school. It was like it never happened.Fortunately for the church, it only takes one lesson, one conversation to make the picture crystal clear for girls. We picked up on it right away. We took our cues from the women around us and learned how to act “properly” if the subject came up. (Except for the occasional strong soul like hawkgrrrl.
:thumbup: ) It’s all very subtle. And now I’d describe it more as insidious. We were let in on the family secret and handed a script. Want to stay in the family? Play your part. And we loved our family, so we did.Which is it? Does the church not see, or does it not care about the emotional fallout for girls? At some point the “overarching good” that people like Bushman talk about doesn’t reach far enough.
I know a lot of people, especially at sites like this, feel very strongly about this, but there are many, many members who know about it and are able to maintain a belief that it won’t be required in the next life and was a temporary thing. They have found a way to deal with it and remain actively involved in the LDS Church. If the Church announced that it was accepting polygamy again, and especially if it started to emphasize it like it did back in the day, I am positive there would be a huge exodus – but that also can be said about most Christian churches if they tried to reinstate Paul’s admonition that women not speak in church – or animal sacrifice – or any number of other Biblical practices – both from the OT and the NT. Cafeteria Christianity allows them to accept the statements in the Bible, even many people who claim to believe in Biblical inerrancy. The more liberal Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) don’t have to go to that extreme. They simply say, “Eh, it was part of the past. I don’t have to deal with it personally” – even with no official repudiation from their churches. Let me emphasize, I am NOT trying to defend the lesson as worded as being good. I’m not trying to defend polygamy, since I also don’t believe it was a divine commandment – particularly as it was implemented in Utah. I’m just saying that it’s important to realize two things: there is nothing in this lesson that says the Church leadership wants or is planning on re-instituting polygamy anytime in the future, and religious people have faced this basic issue for thousands of years.
As I’ve said in another thread, the current leadership is only two generations removed from polygamy – meaning their grandparents were involved and, by and large, were very good people who firmly believed in it. Expecting or demanding a complete denunciation right now (and perhaps in my lifetime, since I’m on the older side of the age scale here) is unrealistic. The leadership is too close to it.
So, what do we do about it, individually, in a way that allows us to stay LDS? Maybe some vent here and other places; maybe some find other ways. The key is figuring out how each of us can deal with it personally.
Curtis wrote:If the Church announced that it was accepting polygamy again, and especially if it started to emphasize it like it did back in the day, I am positive there would be a huge exodus – but that also can be said about most Christian churches if they tried to reinstate Paul’s admonition that women not speak in church – or animal sacrifice – or any number of other Biblical practices – both from the OT and the NT. Cafeteria Christianity allows them to accept the statements in the Bible, even many people who claim to believe in Biblical inerrancy. The more liberal Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) don’t have to go to that extreme. They simply say, “Eh, it was part of the past. I don’t have to deal with it personally” – even with no official repudiation from their churches.
What if the Lutheran church printed brand spanking new manuals in 2014
to instruct their youthabout God’s divine command to Paul regarding women not speaking in church? Unless God commands otherwise, women are permitted to speak in church. Proper priesthood authority (etc., etc.) required to resume the currently-suspended practice of women not speaking in church. Looked up “relief valves” on Wikipedia.
A relief valve is set to open at a predetermined pressure to protect pressure vessels and other equipment from being subjugated to pressures that exceed their design limits.I don’t think that the design limits of modernwomen can take the pressure that suspended polygamy exerts. I think an eighty year-old man with nothing but admiration for his grandparents might not fully appreciate that it’s not just “ timesthey are a-changin’,” it’s people. We can still respect our ancestors’ dedication without believing something that damages our psyches and relationship with God. (My post limit is 3. Thanks to everyone for allowing me to vent.)
Whether we like it or not, polygamy is still one of the things most associated with the church by outsiders. It is quite ironic to think that we’re all po-faced about fornication and sex, the big M even, while the early church members were putting it away in more than one place. I believe it’s partly from external influences. The early LDS included a few Shakers who had very restrictive views of sexuality, and some of the other early members came from sects where spouses were held in common.
Curtis wrote:I know a lot of people, especially at sites like this, feel very strongly about this, but there are many, many members who know about it and are able to maintain a belief that it won’t be required in the next life and was a temporary thing. They have found a way to deal with it and remain actively involved in the LDS Church.
If the Church announced that it was accepting polygamy again, and especially if it started to emphasize it like it did back in the day, I am positive there would be a huge exodus– but that also can be said about most Christian churches if they tried to reinstate Paul’s admonition that women not speak in church – or animal sacrifice – or any number of other Biblical practices – both from the OT and the NT. Cafeteria Christianity allows them to accept the statements in the Bible, even many people who claim to believe in Biblical inerrancy. The more liberal Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) don’t have to go to that extreme. They simply say, “Eh, it was part of the past. I don’t have to deal with it personally” – even with no official repudiation from their churches. I thin you’re right, and I think that is evidenced by other churches and SSM. Look at what is happening in the Episcopal and Methodist churches right now.
DarkJedi wrote:I’m actually OK with the “We don’t know” answer. I think it shows we don’t know everything, and much of what we do “know” about the afterlife is really speculation. Since I’m pretty sure no prophet has received actual revelation since Joseph Smith (and not everything in D&C is really revelation), I understand why the current 15 prophets don’t ask. I would rather they say they don’t know than to add more supposition and speculation. In this particular case (polygamy) I think it’s a cop out, but as Curtis points out the church really can’t just throw polygamy out at this point because it’s too ingrained in the doctrine.
I came back to reread the “Don’t speculate” sidebar. I had thought that maybe it was saying that PM might be required because there may be more women than men or some such thing. In that case it would be technically necessary for someone to engage in PM.
No such luck though. The sidebar specifically says that “Requirement for Celestial Kingdom” and “Requirement for Exaltation.”
Maybe PM is akin to a Master’s Thesis. Maybe we can go through a lifetime of toil and effort, but unless you put on the capstone – it was for naught.
If we can’t “know” that, it certainly puts into question how we can claim to know anything in the religious realm.
Maybe it is akin to a Master’s Thesis for those who want to get a Master’s Degree in Polygamy. If that’s what they want, truly with no coercion and with full consent, so be it. I know a few such people, and I’m fine with them. For everyone else who doesn’t want a Master’s Degree in Polygamy (
or even a Polygamy GED), a Master’s Thesis requirement in Polygamy would be stupid and mean. I don’t see God as stupid or mean, so I won’t write a Master’s Thesis on polygamy – unless I use it as an example of what I believe to be irrelevant to my exaltation in order to get a Master’s Degree in History or Comparative Religion.
Curtis wrote:Maybe it is akin to a Master’s Thesis for those who want to get a Master’s Degree in Polygamy. If that’s what they want, truly with no coercion and with full consent, so be it. I know a few such people, and I’m fine with them.
For everyone else who doesn’t want a Master’s Degree in Polygamy (or even a Polygamy GED), a Master’s Thesis requirement in Polygamy would be stupid and mean.
I don’t see God as stupid or mean, so I won’t write a Master’s Thesis on polygamy – unless I use it as an example of what I believe to be irrelevant to my exaltation in order to get a Master’s Degree in History or Comparative Religion.
Good point Curtis. 99% of members don’t believe PM will be required in the next life. I shouldn’t get my feathers too ruffled if the church doesn’t yet feel like telling the remaining 1% that they don’t belong. I suppose if I want freedom to believe as I choose on the left then I need to be willing to give some freedom to believe to the right (almost fundamentalist) side of the room as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.