Polygamy "Doctrine" in Institute – Fall 2015

[Anonymous]

I used to think earlier in my life that polygamy was a test for the saints. I just can’t accept that anymore because of the degree that it was implemented, the secrecy that was employed, and the fact it is still doctrine (I can marry another woman in the temple and my divorced wife-civil–is still sealed to me.)

The race issue raised by university? That chaps my hide even more. My girlfriend is black and quotes like the 1947 letter by the First Presidency that includes the following response cannot be ignored:

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

So polygamy was OK but interracial marriage was “repugnant.” Wow.

[Anonymous]

Alex wrote:

The race issue raised by university? That chaps my hide even more. My girlfriend is black and quotes like the 1947 letter by the First Presidency that includes the following response cannot be ignored:

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

So polygamy was OK but interracial marriage was “repugnant.” Wow.

I don’t know how I would feel about this if I were black, but today’s church is urging us to do exactly that – ignore it (or, more accurately, reject the old justifications for the ban), and that’s a great step forward, imo.

Quote:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. – Race and Priesthood Essay

I’m pretty sure that if you ask almost any LDS person today what racism is, they’d have a standard answer, and they would say it is bad. I don’t know what kind of answer you’d get if you asked an LDS person to define sexism and give an opinion of it. I’m not excluding myself, either.

[Anonymous]

Alex wrote:

I used to think earlier in my life that polygamy was a test for the saints. I just can’t accept that anymore because of the degree that it was implemented, the secrecy that was employed, and the fact it is still doctrine (I can marry another woman in the temple and my divorced wife-civil–is still sealed to me.)

The race issue raised by university? That chaps my hide even more. My girlfriend is black and quotes like the 1947 letter by the First Presidency that includes the following response cannot be ignored:

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

So polygamy was OK but interracial marriage was “repugnant.” Wow.

Had a neighbor who was the EQ president. He is as white as they come, and his wife is a beautiful Ghana woman: interracial marriage as it would be condemned by early leadership. I am happy–VERY happy to say–this woman, man, and their beautiful children were accepted in the community and the church. Their little girl is one of the smartest little ones I’ve ever met. And,…addicted to the IPAD… 🙂

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

This was later removed when D&C 132 was added. What’s worse is that the accounts of the way Joseph Smith actually practiced polygamy/polyandry don’t really resemble the description in D&C 132 anyway because it said the new wives should be virgins and married only with the consent of the first wife. So D&C 132 doesn’t really help Joseph Smith’s credibility much anyway once you start looking at all the details but I guess the Church is basically depending on most members not noticing or worrying too much about issues like this.

DA, this focus on “emphasis” is right on the numbers. At the local level, I have brought questions regarding church opinions or policies about marriage and aspects of marriage up, and have gotten: “Oh, that is not important to think about” type responses. Those responses have infuriated me BECAUSE they seem elusive and dishonest, even demeaning. Clearly the local leadership, in my experience, doesn’t know how to address these concerns either. They themselves systemically de-emphasize the questions as well.

The church really does seem to have a policy of de-emphasis of certain topics, and if you start poking around in those areas, you get warned, called into the bishop’s office, and asked if you are reading your scriptures. That is actually ironic in the context of this thread,…because 132 is a scripture. So, I suppose I could respond,…”Yes bishop,..I am reading section 132 along with all the other scriptures. Just can’t see how that helps though….since that IS PART OF THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.”

Anyway,…I particular appreciated your post because this unwritten policy of “lets just ignore this and maybe it wont hurt too many people” is infuriating. Actually, I am past that stage in all fairness. I’m afraid I have drawn some conclusions–and a big one is I reject that God is a respecter of person. You see, ONLY if God is a respecter of person can JS break his own rules–and historically, is seems pretty clear that he broke all kinds of rules with his very own 132. But, as part of that conclusion, JS and other GAs feel they have licence to break rules as well.

You see, you can’t say: “Oh, JS did what he did because God commanded him to take polyandrous wives” without saying in the same context “God is a respecter of persons, and the rules change for an exclusive few.” That is NOT ok with me.

There is scriptural precedence that God has commanded people to commit atrocities like killing babies–yes that is there. Are we now saying that God commanded people to engage in polyandry–something that has no scriptural precedence, even in the culture of polygamy? I can’t buy this…sorry,…doesn’t resonate with me.

And it is clear from what I have read historically that women were considered the prize of men, given by God, for righteousness. Never could get my head around a woman being an object of reward. What kindof leader would use religious power, fear of damnation to enforce it, to coerce and control another human? Again,…I reject it.

The bigger question is how can JS be a prophet when his own credibility and morality is in serious question because of this history? This is a pretty big deal for me….

[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.

OON, I’ve been thinking about this this morning and I completely agree. What I was trying to get at is whether it’s useful to think of polygamy as “sexism,” or for LDS people to try to define sexism. With the Race and Priesthood essay, we took all the old cloaks and garb off and flat-out called the ban “racist.” What do you think?

[Anonymous]

university wrote:

The way the church teaches this doctrine perpetuates the pain for women. The entire doctrine, even as it is still taught today, is a sexist abomination in my opinion, and I use those words purposely. The fact that the Church teaches they “just don’t know” what will happen in the next life is beyond awful.

All great posts, and this part of university’s I agree with 100%.

And yet…I think it is the reality we have in the church. We just don’t know about the afterlife, even if as Mormons we love having a modern day prophet to shed more light on things and say truth is restored.

Mormonism may have turned on the high beams to see further, but there is still an immensely large darkness out there beyond what we know and can see, that we still just don’t know how eternal families will work in the eternities. We just have hopes.

And I hope it doesn’t resemble any polygamy in any way.

But as University points out…the “just don’t know” is not to be overlooked. Because honest seekers of truth will find that is the answer. And so, we are all cafeteria mormons, christians, and human beings.

[Anonymous]

university wrote:

But from what I’ve experienced, girls in the Church aren’t forgetting about it. They’re just putting it on the shelf. But until the Church deals with this issue, we’re not going to resolve our gender-inequality issues. I feel like the two are strongly linked. Maybe working on one will help heal the other.

I’m glad you chimed in; it’s good to know what a woman much younger than myself is experiencing. In that fMh interview Claudia Bushman called polygamy the elephant in the room.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Mormonism may have turned on the high beams to see further, but there is still an immensely large darkness out there beyond what we know and can see, that we still just don’t know how eternal families will work in the eternities.

But, we have a prophet do we not? And, we are touting to be one of the most progressive defenders of marriage out there, right? And we teach that the family is essential in this world and eternal marriage is the highest order of the priesthood right?

So, how can we know so little about how the family plays out in the next life?

Or, is more known, but not communicated?

I take this as a convenient position taken by those at HQ because they don’t want to answer for the history. I can’t believe that these men who claim to speak with God, receive revelations and be successors of JS (with the same keys) don’t know the answers to these questions.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

So, how can we know so little about how the family plays out in the next life?

Rob, I’m okay with knowing so little. And the issues of JS’s polygamy and what a prophet is are separate for me. I think what I’m suggesting is that we should look at what we thought we knew about families.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

But, we have a prophet do we not?

Yes, we do. O thank thee oh God.

Rob4Hope wrote:

And, we are touting to be one of the most progressive defenders of marriage out there, right?

Um….I haven’t heard that. I’d say no.

Rob4Hope wrote:

And we teach that the family is essential in this world and eternal marriage is the highest order of the priesthood right?

Umm…I’d word it differently, but family is critical to God’s plan. Somehow.

Rob4Hope wrote:

So, how can we know so little about how the family plays out in the next life?

Seems unsettling, huh? Kind of a bummer. I try to get used to it.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Or, is more known, but not communicated?

Don’t know until they communicate something.

Rob4Hope wrote:

I can’t believe that these men who claim to speak with God, receive revelations and be successors of JS (with the same keys) don’t know the answers to these questions.

I believe they don’t know. That is the answer I eventually get to and have heard them say so.

It is why we fumble around with polygamy still…because they haven’t said definitively. And I don’t think God cares to make us know all things. He wants to see how we pass through life with only the high beams on. A spotlight on polygamy is not attractive. It is better to focus on Christ, which is what I thought university says most woman try to do…but it doesn’t solve the problem…it is just the coping mechanism.

[Anonymous]

I’m okay with putting this thread at the bottom of the pile if anyone thinks we should. The discussion goes on because people contribute and respond. I learn a lot and want to know other people’s thoughts, but I understand that it can be fatiguing.

[Anonymous]

DA, I agree with your analysis. But, I do want to clarify a couple of historical points:

On not including D&C 132 until the 1876 edition of the D&C – Early polygamy was officially a secret, but it was a poorly kept one. In the Nauvoo era, everyone in the country, in and out of the Church, seemed to know that JS was many wives. The Warsaw Signal and the Nauvoo Expositor were pretty clear about it. Even during the last few weeks of JS’s life, the minutes of the Nauvoo City Council were published in the Church-owned Nauvoo Neighbor, including these words hinting at it from the Mayor (JS): “They make it a criminality for a man to have a wife on the earth while he has one in heaven, according to the keys of the Holy Priesthood.” Soon after establishing the settlements of Utah, the Church announced the revelation on polygamy by reading it from the pulpit in conference in August of 1852 and it was published in the Deseret News a couple weeks later. It’s true that it wasn’t included in the D&C for almost 25 more years, but the 1876 edition was the first printing of the D&C in Utah, and the first new edition of the work since JS’s death, so it’s not like the Church sprang it on the people at that point. It’s an oft-cited fact to say that D&C 132 wasn’t included until the 1876 edition, but honestly, I don’t know what the point of that factoid is as it pertains to polygamy.

The original section 101 that stated that monogamy was the law of the Church had a dubious beginning. It was inserted in the 1835 edition of the D&C by vote of the committee in charge of the publication, run by Oliver Cowdery and Sydney Rigdon, two staunch anti-polygamists. And the vote to include the statement was taken while JS was in the East. Furthermore, it’s not a revelation at all, but a statement of policy. That’s the history. My interpretation of it is that OC was trying to force the Church into an official position that wouldn’t let JS continue the polygamy concept.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Rob4Hope wrote:

So, how can we know so little about how the family plays out in the next life?

Rob, I’m okay with knowing so little. And the issues of JS’s polygamy and what a prophet is are separate for me. I think what I’m suggesting is that we should look at what we thought we knew about families.

There is a lot of speculation isn’t there about what we think we know. I can understand your position Ann. The Proclamation on the Family, not a revelation but a policy treated with more strength than 132 receives (which is a revelation so to speak) confuses me. It is because of such strong statements like the PoF that I am frustrated. If we really know so little, we have no business saying that “family” is central to God’s plan.

I mean, after all,…if we know so little, what is “family” in the next life?…polygamy, polyandry, SSM, adopted children, open marriages with anyone and everyone? Do we really not know? And, is there sex over there at all?…if not, then why do women and men need to be together?….we know so little right? But, the PoF says family is central, and marriage is for “time and eternity”. So, for some reason, our “doctrine” says it is essential. But why?

NO,..I believe the GAs know more than they share about family in the next life. I don’t think they trust the membership to handle the answers, so they keep it hidden.

This is my opinion, but I feel strongly about it and respect all others and how they feel.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I’m okay with putting this thread at the bottom of the pile if anyone thinks we should. The discussion goes on because people contribute and respond. I learn a lot and want to know other people’s thoughts, but I understand that it can be fatiguing.

I love this thread. But I feel like I just repeat often what others say–perhaps from a different angle. I am not opposed to leaving it up for a while though…

[Author]

Posts