Polygamy… ending in stages

[Anonymous]

Riceandbeans started a thread on a different topic, but mentioned the possible refutation of polygamy sometime in the next century or two.

I believe there is a very real chance that the Church will re-categorize polygamy as non-doctrinal within our lifetimes. I think it’s already starting. We’ll probably never get a full refuting of it, the way most people here would like. Like many other embarrassing doctrines, the Church has simply tried to stay quiet and pretend it never existed. However, there are two factors that I believe are driving the Church closer to divorcing itself from its history.

1 – Polygamy in pop culture. Every time a discussion of Big Love, Sister Wives, or FLDS comes up, the LDS Church gets embarrassing press, and the best that can be said is that the Church “ended the practice of polygamy over a hundred years ago.” The Church would greatly benefit from a much stronger statement.

2 – Increasing awareness by members. Polygamy used to be a priori knowledge for LDS members. We knew it existed, shrugged our shoulders, and moved on. But we didn’t really know the details. I didn’t know that JS had polygamous wives until well after my mission. I had a mental picture of BY’s polygamous marriages as a bunch of older women that were BY’s own age, but BY married girls half his age or less TWENTY times. It’s impossible, in this new era of information, for the Church to sweep it under a rug.

There was a very encouraging sign a couple years back, when M. Russell Ballard stated the following in the Ensign:

Quote:

Our Church members have often allowed others to set the conversational agenda. An example is plural marriage. This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890. It’s now 2010. Why are we still talking about it? It was a practice. It ended. We moved on. If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge that it was once a practice but not now and that people shouldn’t confuse any polygamists with our church. In ordinary conversations, don’t waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church. — M. Russell Ballard, July 2010 Ensign, http://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/07/sharing-the-gospel-with-confidence

While this statement doesn’t refute the doctrine of polygamy, it does attempt to marginalize it. It’s an important step.

The Manifesto was a huge leap, but polygamy still existed. The Church eventually ended wink-and-nod polygamy and came to prosecute those that persisted. That was another big step. The Church has become more open to scholarship about polygamy. That was a big step. The Church is now clearly distancing itself from the “practice” of polygamy, which is another big step. Next up, is going to be the outright teaching that polygamy is not a doctrine. That may seem like too-big a leap, considering it has to acknowledge mistakes by JS and BY, and back off on D&C 132, but it doesn’t seem any more substantial than some of the other steps that have already taken place.

[Anonymous]

Interesting thread/question.

I’m curious … do People think that Elder Ballard’s argument that since polygamy ended (supposedly) in the 19th century that we should just let bygones be bygones and forget about it is a valid one? I say “Not so fast!” for the following reasons.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Doug.

I can’t ever remember when the Church ended a program (like polygamy) & said it did so because it was wrong.

When blacks were given the PH it was presented by saying it was a revalation from God to SWK & sustained by the Quorum of the 12.

No where, that I’m aware of, did they say the practice of restricting who received the PH was wrong.

I don’t anticipate the time when the Church will ever say that any of our beliefs are (or were) wrong or non-doctrinal.

They will say, by revelation, it has a belief or program has changed. Not that it was wrong.

Think of the ramifications.

Mike from Milton.

[Anonymous]

The RLDS or Community of Christ evolution on the topic of polygamy is fascinating to me, and a good model for what COULD happen in the LDS Church. The early RLDS Church’s most distinguishing characteristic, in my mind, was its opposition to and even denial of polygamy. To me, lineal descent was second in their agenda. Yet, today, they are open to the idea that it did take place, and simply separating the practice from the doctrine. If you look on the Community of Christ website, you can find the following beautifully worded statement on polygamy (that I wish the LDS Church would absorb into its own language):

Quote:

Community of Christ takes into account the growing body of scholarly research and publications depicting the polygamous teachings and practices of the Nauvoo period of church history (1840–1846). The context of these developments included a time of religious and cultural experimentation in the United States and the emergence of a system of secret temple ordinances in Nauvoo that accented the primacy of family connections, in this life and the next. The practice of plural marriage emerged from that context and involved a small group of key leaders entering into polygamous marriage rituals and covenants. Research findings point to Joseph Smith Jr. as a significant source for plural marriage teaching and practice at Nauvoo. However, several of his associates later wrote that he repudiated the plural marriage system and began to try to stop its practice shortly before his death in June 1844.

Good historical inquiry understands that conclusions are open to correction as new understanding and information comes from ongoing study. Community of Christ, in its ongoing quest for truth, remains open to a more complete understanding of its history. Through careful study and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the church is learning how to own and responsibly interpret all of its history. This process includes putting new information and changing understandings into proper perspective while emphasizing those parts that continue to play a vital role in guiding and shaping the church’s identity and mission today. In this way, we can genuinely affirm the prophetic vision of Joseph Smith Jr., while acknowledging how God’s Spirit works in the lives of imperfect, but highly dedicated people to shape a faith movement that continues to play a vital role in God’s unfolding purposes today.

Over time Community of Christ has moved away from an identity rooted in battling polygamy and charges that Joseph Smith Jr. was somehow involved to focus on pursuing our mission to proclaim Jesus Christ and promote communities of joy, hope, love, and peace. — http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp

[Anonymous]

That’s well and good, and I mean that sincerely, but the RLDS had to change to the Community of Christ and shed a lot of its history in order to be what it is now – and it’s a dying religion in many ways, due at least partly, imo, to the direction it took about a lot of things.

Honestly, as much as I don’t like the Utah era practice of polygamy, I can’t say with 100% certainty that it obviously was wrong or a bad thing from a purely practical standpoint. Yes, the negative consequences are obvious, but there really were positive consequences – and I’m not sure the LDS Church would have become the distinct quasi-ethnicity it became without it. (and I also am not certain it would have survived and actually strengthened through the bitter decades without it, even if most members were just fine not participating and then letting go of it) I also have NO problem, personally, with views of the afterlife relative to interpersonal relationships that are heterodox currently but would have been much more mainstream during the polyandry and polygamy days. To me, it’s such a complicated issue that I don’t want the Church to disavow the early marriage arrangements as completely wrong – even as I don’t want them re-implemented and preached as the standard in my lifetime.

Having said that, I really do think we, collectively as a people, are hypocrites, fundamentally, in the way we fought to keep polygamy and now fight to outlaw gay marriage. So, wanting consistency, at least, I hope we either call polygamy and all the varying models wrong in hindsight OR stopping calling consensual gay marriage wrong now. Of the two, I’d prefer the second course.

[Anonymous]

Eugene England wrote an article arguing that Polygamy will either not exist or be very rare in the celestial kingdom. He also argues against a restoration of the practice of polygamy at some future date (to include the millennium).

http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1987_e_001.pdf

It has been suggested that Mr. England’s arguments in this article are weak. I believe it would be difficult to make more compelling arguments about what heaven will look like when we just don’t know.

Regardless of the accuracy of his ideas of what may or may not happen in heaven, I believe his article to be important in the here and now. I believe his stance helps to widen the Mormon tent just a little. For women that feel that they need to feel ok about sharing their husband in order to wholly believe in the Prophet JS, but never quite get there – it is now just a little bit more acceptable to not feel guilty or selfish.

I believe Elder Ballard’s statement is similar. That being a Mormon no longer means that I should have to endure a SS lesson that defends (or even worse, idealizes) polygamy. It is not necessarily part of the Gospel program going forward as we currently understand it.

In my mission, among ourselves, Isaiah 4:1 was held up as evidence that polygamy would be reinstituted in the future.

Quote:

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by your name, to take away our reproach.

Later, when reading the OT institute manual, I found a statement saying that the form of polygamy being described here is not in line with LDS divinely sanctioned polygamy because the women are not being financially supported by the husband. So in that context, this is secular polygamy or hedonist polygamy and not a promise of a reinstitution of divine polygamy.

Also in my mission (the bastion of theological speculation that it was), I remember a sister missionary saying that she focused on converting males so as to not be obligated to share her future righteous husband with the overabundance of righteous women in the CK.

I believe that all of these 3 developments (Mr. England’s essay, Elder Ballard’s statement, and the repudiation of Isaiah 4:1 as a future polygamy proof text by the OT institute manual) are helpful in helping members but particularly women members disassociate polygamy from part of the doctrinal package of the church.

They all serve to lessen to pressure some women may feel to prepare for the possibility that they will be asked to share their husbands. Monogomy is not a prepatory gospel for Polygamy!

[Anonymous]

I remember a meeting of BYU’s feminist group about 12 years ago when Gene spoke, and how the room erupted in applause when, after concluding his talk (and the meeting was supposed to have ended), he said something like: by the way, I believe that polygamy is not a Celestial thing: we will not be practicing it in the next life!

It was precisely what everyone wanted to hear.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

The RLDS or Community of Christ evolution on the topic of polygamy is fascinating to me, and a good model for what COULD happen in the LDS Church. The early RLDS Church’s most distinguishing characteristic, in my mind, was its opposition to and even denial of polygamy. To me, lineal descent was second in their agenda. Yet, today, they are open to the idea that it did take place, and simply separating the practice from the doctrine…

Old-Timer wrote:

That’s well and good, and I mean that sincerely, but the RLDS had to change to the Community of Christ and shed a lot of its history in order to be what it is now – and it’s a dying religion in many ways, due at least partly, imo, to the direction it took about a lot of things…Honestly, as much as I don’t like the Utah era practice of polygamy, I can’t say with 100% certainty that it obviously was wrong or a bad thing from a purely practical standpoint. Yes, the negative consequences are obvious, but there really were positive consequences – and I’m not sure the LDS Church would have become the distinct quasi-ethnicity it became without it…To me, it’s such a complicated issue that I don’t want the Church to disavow the early marriage arrangements as completely wrong – even as I don’t want them re-implemented and preached as the standard in my lifetime.

I don’t know about this fairly common idea that if the Church publicly admits they were wrong about many things or makes major changes to any existing core doctrines or policies then they will probably end up almost exactly like the RLDS/Community of Christ Church with hardly any followers left because I don’t believe that the RLDS Church ever had nearly the same momentum and number of members as the LDS Church to begin with. As much as I hate to admit it some of my least favorite characteristics of the Church that I think are especially cult-like probably have been a major factor in the Church’s relative success so far such as temple marriage and extreme commitment and sacrifices by the average active LDS Church member. However, I think these traditions will be increasingly difficult and problematic to sustain and will end up setting way too many Church members up for bitter disappointment nowadays. That’s why I would rather see something more like the Catholic Church where individual followers don’t necessarily feel like they need to believe everything their church teaches or else they might as well not even be Catholic anymore.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

Riceandbeans started a thread on a different topic, but mentioned the possible refutation of polygamy sometime in the next century or two.

I believe there is a very real chance that the Church will re-categorize polygamy as non-doctrinal within our lifetimes. I think it’s already starting…There was a very encouraging sign a couple years back, when M. Russell Ballard stated the following in the Ensign:

Quote:

Our Church members have often allowed others to set the conversational agenda. An example is plural marriage. This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890. It’s now 2010. Why are we still talking about it? It was a practice. It ended. We moved on. If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge that it was once a practice but not now and that people shouldn’t confuse any polygamists with our church. In ordinary conversations, don’t waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church. — M. Russell Ballard

While this statement doesn’t refute the doctrine of polygamy, it does attempt to marginalize it. It’s an important step.

Personally I don’t really like this general approach that some Church leaders like M. Russell Ballard and Gordon B. Hinckley have taken where they were basically trying to just shrug off some of the Church’s embarrassing history as if it doesn’t matter anymore because it’s all “in the past” now. I understand their point that this is not really what the Church is about at this point and it won’t really help the Church’s cause to dwell on it too much but the problem is that they continue to act like LDS prophets should not even be questioned because they will supposedly never lead the Church astray. Well if they weren’t able to keep their story straight about things like polygamy and the racial priesthood ban then I don’t see why members should be expected to have much confidence in them about current doctrines like tithing and temple ordinances. That’s why all this history still matters because it seriously undermines their credibility as long as they continue to make outrageous claims about what their role as LDS prophets and apostles is supposed to mean.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Well if they weren’t able to keep their story straight about things like polygamy and the racial priesthood ban then I don’t see why members should be expected to have much confidence in them about current doctrines like tithing and temple ordinances. That’s why all this history still matters because it seriously undermines their credibility as long as they continue to make outrageous claims about what their role as LDS prophets and apostles is supposed to mean.

Perfectly said. That’s my #1 problem with current church leadership. But they are in a bind. If they say early doctrine is from god, then Mormons become a bunch of racist polygamists. If they denounce it, then the early church had major problems with prophetic revelation, which calls even the BoM into question.

[Anonymous]

+1 on what DA said.

[Anonymous]

Brown wrote:

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Well if they weren’t able to keep their story straight about things like polygamy and the racial priesthood ban then I don’t see why members should be expected to have much confidence in them about current doctrines like tithing and temple ordinances. That’s why all this history still matters because it seriously undermines their credibility as long as they continue to make outrageous claims about what their role as LDS prophets and apostles is supposed to mean.

Perfectly said. That’s my #1 problem with current church leadership. But they are in a bind. If they say early doctrine is from god, then Mormons become a bunch of racist polygamists. If they denounce it, then the early church had major problems with prophetic revelation, which calls even the BoM into question.

They have definitely painted themselves into a corner by putting so much emphasis on the ideas of nearly infallible prophets and how important it supposedly is for all of this to be 100% true at the same time along with making so many demands that basically depend on these prophet/truth claims to really justify because they often aren’t something people can feel very good about doing otherwise. Personally I think the best thing they could do about the situation without the Church completely falling apart would be for them to be a little more careful about what exactly they are asking people to do and why and start to tone it down with all the glorification of prophets. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Church in the next few decades now that more Church members and investigators are becoming fully aware of some of the worst problems with the Church’s official story.

[Anonymous]

+1 again to DA’s latest comment.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

+1 again to DA’s latest comment.

Thanks SD; this topic and M. Russell Ballard’s suggestion to just stop talking about are hard for me to stomach because polygamy and the racial priesthood ban really bothered me before my mission but I tried to just shrug off these glaring problems and tell myself that the Church was still true anyway and that it wasn’t important to understand why the Church was this way before. That kind of rationalization and denial worked alright to make me feel better in spite of two or three major inconsistencies but once I saw at least 20 major problems like this at the same time the only explanation that made much sense to me anymore was that Church leaders were basically just ordinary men that were not any more inspired than me and that whatever revelation there may be is almost certainly not nearly as dependable as the Church claims.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

…and start to tone it down with all the glorification of prophets.

Yes… Please.

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

…without the Church completely falling aparty…

I guess that’s it for me… I don’t feel that the church would completely fall apart.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the Church came out with the following hypothetical Official Declaration 3:

“In the early days of the Church, Joseph Smith attempted to coalesce the doctrine of eternal marriage with the reality that many would be married more than once in this life. He came to believe and to preach that eternal marriages could be performed between a righteous man and more than one woman. Later prophets, including Brigham Young, followed the teachings faithfully, and polygamy grew to become a major characteristic of the Church. In 1890, the Church officially ceased the practice of polygamy. We now declare that while Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other faithful leaders of the time tried to mesh their lives with the principles that they learned from God, that polygamy itself is not a doctrine of the gospel. We declare that a man should have one spouse and that a woman should have one spouse, and that it will be so in the eternities.”

If the church came out with the above statement, I do not believe that the church would collapse. On the contrary, I believe there would be a collective sigh of relief. In addition, I think such a position would help to stop the bleeding that the church will otherwise continue to experience, as members grapple with supposedly infallible leaders practicing such abhorrent “doctrines”. I can’t think of a single person in today’s church that is glad for the still-existing doctrine of polygamy.

I point out the restriction on the priesthood (and temple) which ended in 1978. There were many who believed, supported and defended that principle with fervor, because they perceived it as coming from God. But now-a-days, it’s pretty common belief, even among TBMs, and even unofficial position of the church, that we aren’t sure why it started, but we have a feeling that it wasn’t specifically ordained of God… that it was a practice, rather than a doctrine. That has completely relegated the once embarrassing doctrine to nothing more than an embarrassing history, which we don’t have to apologize for (as much), because it really is in the past.

[Author]

Posts