Polygamy "Doctrine" in Institute – Fall 2015

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

To me the priesthood/temple ban and polygamy are two totally separate issues. Yes, they both have/had a negative affect on people, but beyond that there’s not a lot of similarity and I find it useful not to conflate them. The ban was viewed as a this-life kind of a thing. Mormon Doctrine, 1966: “President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man.” This is a hugely important distinction, because polygamy today is quite the opposite. It’s not a this-life thing for us anymore, but is an eternal principle (D&C 132). Compared to polygamy, the ban affected relatively few people, but it did so in ways that while different were also terrible. Black people could not go to the temple, and because of this, they couldn’t be sealed (or enter into polygamy). The ban was relatively easy to lift specifically because there was no corollary either to D&C 132 or to practices of Joseph Smith. The 1890 manifesto and the 1978 revelation both ended the respective practices. But while it’s easy to see that the ban is behind us, it’s obvious from this thread that it’s not so easy to put polygamy in the rear-view mirror.

Personally I don’t believe that abandoning the racial priesthood ban was really all that easy for Church leaders; if it was then I wouldn’t have expected them to publish a new “revelation” in the D&C and make one of the few additions to the LDS scriptures we still have since JS died to implement the change. I’m not saying polygamy and the racial priesthood ban don’t have significant differences between them but I still think they are very similar simply in the sense both are now very unpopular and embarrassing issues for the Church complicated by the fact that Church leaders resisted abandoning these doctrines as long as they did apparently mostly because they believed they were commanded by God and could not be changed only to later end up abandoning them anyway.

As far as I’m concerned the racial priesthood ban is already every bit as much of a glaring example of recent Church leaders completely contradicting what previous leaders claimed was directly commanded by God that making an official statement that polygamy was not necessarily commanded or expected by God would be. For example, there are already existing scriptures that still support the idea of God being racist if taken literally every bit as much as D&C 132 supports the idea that God directly commanded polygamy. But in spite of all this the Church has largely taken this change in stride and it has been entirely positive for the Church as far as I can tell and I suspect that rejecting polygamy as a doctrine and relegating it to an abandoned practice that was temporarily allowed to help build up the Church with large “righteous” families with many children or whatever other excuses the Church could come up with (dynastic non-sexual sealings?) would be received more or less the same way by most active members at this point.

Even if they went so far as to remove or change the polygamy related verses from D&C 132 what would really happen in all likelihood? To be honest it wouldn’t surprise me if most active members didn’t end up not paying much more attention to this change in that case than the “white and delightsome” change or the change in the preface of the BoM saying that the Lamanites were “among the ancestors” of the Native Americans rather than their “principle ancestors” that have already been made. Sure it would probably get a lot of attention on the DAMU, be reported by the Salt Lake Tribune and other media outlets, and apologists would have to try to come up with explanations for it going forward, but for most members I’m not sure it would be much of a concern and would instead mostly be viewed as positive step overall if they even noticed it.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

…if they even noticed it.

I’m a doubter and someone who feels lied to. Still in some pretty strong FC.

I have often wondered how many LDS people notice these things, these changes and policy anomalies/doctrinal contradictions. I mean, I really wonder. I use to feel like a total island–someone who was just standing alone in the midst of contradictions and conflicts, feeling like an outcast and idiot because my cognitive dissonance wouldn’t just go away when told to “read the scriptures, say your prayers, pay your tithing,…”

Is polygamy a “small” issue for many of the members? Do they even think about it? Have they even noticed it?

I get the feeling most LDS people simply put it on the shelf, don’t pay much attention to it, and just shrug it off with: “Oh that was back then,…we don’t believe that any more.” And yet, having is be a significant section in our scriptural canon can’t easily be overlooked, at least by me.

Anyway,…just having a pondering type reflection here….

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

…if they even noticed it.

I’m a doubter and someone who feels lied to. Still in some pretty strong FC.

I have often wondered how many LDS people notice these things, these changes and policy anomalies/doctrinal contradictions. I mean, I really wonder. I use to feel like a total island–someone who was just standing alone in the midst of contradictions and conflicts, feeling like an outcast and idiot because my cognitive dissonance wouldn’t just go away when told to “read the scriptures, say your prayers, pay your tithing,…”

Is polygamy a “small” issue for many of the members? Do they even think about it? Have they even noticed it?

I get the feeling most LDS people simply put it on the shelf, don’t pay much attention to it, and just shrug it off with: “Oh that was back then,…we don’t believe that any more.” And yet, having is be a significant section in our scriptural canon can’t easily be overlooked, at least by me.

Anyway,…just having a pondering type reflection here….

I hear you Rob. I know when I found out a bunch of “stuff” about history and such, I half way expected a massive group leaving from the church once they knew that it wasn’t anti-Mormon lies. I realize now that we could see increasing defections, but at the same time others retrenching even more. I have come to a point where I can respect someone that knows about the “stuff” but wants to stay. But I still find it baffling. Some people like kimchi which I also don’t understand.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

I have come to a point where I can respect someone that knows about the “stuff” but wants to stay. But I still find it baffling. Some people like kimchi which I also don’t understand.

For me it’s community. I stopped believing most of it a long time ago, got over the being angry all the time, and settled back to being with a group of people that seem to care about and want to help each other. Where else are you going to find a ready made bunch of friends when you move plus and EQ president with a pickup and strong backs to help you? And where else will you get a chance to be part of that for others? I don’t much like staying under the radar with some of the things I believe or don’t but it’s not my work to correct or convert anybody.

[Author]

Posts