- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:
What is the point of drawing distinctions between Joseph- and Brigham-style polygamy when the church maintains that it’s ALL righteous and justified?
Because “the Church” can be wrong about some things, and it’s important to me to come to an understanding of things that make sense to me. Complicated things aren’t black-and-white, so I refuse to stop thinking just because a black-and-white view is the general standard.
Having said that, I think there are FAR, FAR, FAR more fully active members who do not think “it’s all righteous and justified” than most struggling members realize. .
I actually agree with this. And as long as you keep your mouth shut and never talk about it, you can remain an active member. But once you do start talking and questioning the institution….you are labeled an apostate and marginalized for your opinion.
I could go on, but I won’t.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Analyzing is not justifying. I see nothing wrong with attempting to understand the practice in its historical/religious context. I hate that the Church practiced it. If I could wake up tomorrow and have one thing changed about the Church, it would be that polygamy never happened. However, If we dissenters are as black & white as the Church, just at the other end of the spectrum, then I believe we have no hope of ever influencing the Church. I want the Church someday, soon I hope, to acknowledge that polygamy in any form, along with section 132, are not from God and not part of our belief for this life or the next. The ONLY way the Church will ever come to that conclusion is by looking at it as a legitimate, but misguided, attempt by early Church leaders to reach their vision of the Kingdom of God on earth.
Personally, I believe JS was motivated by more than just sex. However, I think he was all over the map on this one and did a criminally poor job of thinking about the effect of such an enterprise. As long as we are looking at the damage it caused, don’t forget that he lost his own life as a result of this program.
Likewise, I believe BY was just being the obedient soldier. He thought of everything in heaven as a literally translated action on earth, from how to raise corn to how to raise children. Utah-era BY is my least favorite figure in the history of the Church, but he was “just following orders.”
If and only if we can learn to understand the drivers of polygamy, do we have a shot at separating it out as a mostly well-intended fabrication that has brought nothing but pain and suffering, and that it could and should be erased from our view of God. If all we ever say is that JS used his position and authority to seduce 14 year olds, then we might as well pick up our ball and go home, because the Church will never adopt that premise.
On our Own, I agree with you that “analyzing is not justifying.” The church though and many of its members are not analyzing polygamy from a non biased simply want to learn why starting point. No, they are analyzing polygamy with the explicit intent and purpose to justify it! That is why for all of the exploration into the whys and origins of polygamy women’s experiences and issues are most often not even acknowledge other than to say that through polygamy women’s “glory is increased solely because of the man.” As you say, researching how and why something such as polygamy came about is fine, but at least acknowledge the impact on women both past and present in your research. The church though uses the various theories to justify polygamy without ever considering that perhaps it was simply a honest mistake or misunderstanding.
I would love to see the church even be open to the possibility that polygamy was simply an honest error. I do not see there coming a time though when the church would acknowledge that, “hey JS and BY were doing the best they could with their limited knowledge of eternal sealings and the afterlife. They unfortunately got polygamy wrong and we are willing to say that it was a mistake. That being said we will now be sealing BOTH men and women to multiple marriage partners if a spouse dies and will let God work it out in the next life. So women sorry for making you feel less valued and loved by God and men you only get one wife so make this the best relationship you can.”
Such a statement will never happen though I believe for several reasons,
1. The church would have to acknowledge that the prophets can make very serious mistakes
2. The men of the church do not even realize how much polygamy can affect and harm many modern day lds women. Many think it was simply something in the past so why would it bother any current lds women? Others simply view women
complying with polygamy as a women’s duty in honoring the priesthood. That it is her predetermined role.
3. There are other more pressing things on their minds.
Roy, “I feel that polygamy does color our current sense of equality in marriage. It is hard to say that God created us for different but equal roles (like the yin-yang, two halves of a whole) and then say in the next breath that the man half is fulfilled by one man (and only one man is permitted) and the more women the better in the woman half. Regardless of the quantity of women there is no risk of imbalance – The man is more than enough to counterweight all the women.”
Exactly! The church may not go into great detail about this, but as a woman how can I not feel that I am and always will be less than my husband or any man for that matter?
Also I am going on a limb speaking for cwald (correct me if I’m wrong cwald) but I do not think he and I are so black and white in our thinking about polygamy to be unwilling to say that perhaps the JS was simply a fallible man doing the best he could at a difficult time. I would be willing to give the church a HUGE pass if they came out and said that polygamy was a honest mistake and the prophet was doing the best as he understood it. I could easily accept that and move on.
The problem is that will most likely not happen. Point in case, with the new revisions to the scriptures the church had a great opportunity to remove DC 132 and simply say that it was no longer relevant or needed. No they choose not to do that and simply added that “monogamy is God’s standard usually”. Great, women you are still in the same position as before.
Dax wrote:“hey JS and BY were doing the best they could with their limited knowledge of eternal sealings and the afterlife. They unfortunately got polygamy wrong and we are willing to say that it was a mistake. That being said we will now be sealing BOTH men and women to multiple marriage partners if a spouse dies and will let God work it out in the next life. So women sorry for making you feel less valued and loved by God and men you only get one wife so make this the best relationship you can.”
I’d love to see that as an officail press release!
:thumbup: I’d like to see that press release, as well. Quote:And as long as you keep your mouth shut and never talk about it, you can remain an active member.
I don’t keep my mouth shut, and I talk about it. I have learned how to do so. I also know others who talk about it. Just saying. (Having said that, I understand totally that local leadership can create an atmosphere in which shutting up is the best option.)
Dax wrote:with the new revisions to the scriptures the church had a great opportunity to remove DC 132 and simply say that it was no longer relevant or needed.
Actually, I’m pretty sure they couldn’t take out an existing section of the D&C without approval from the general membership… Similarly, every section and OD was accepted by common consent. But I’m fine with that. I want polygamy doctrine to go away. It won’t happen with a whimper (as the church has tried), it will take a bang.FWIW, I’m more optimistic that the Church will eventually do this.
Brian, First of all, thanks for joining in the discussion. I know we’ve talked about you here before–you might want to do a search of your name here and see all the threads we’ve discussed. And thanks for correcting me where I mis-spoke. I’m glad to hear a nice introduction into the theology of polygamy.
Roy,
I recorded one of Richard Bennett’s presentations to the Sons of Utah Pioneers a few years ago, but haven’t had time to write up a transcript. I’ll see what I can do there. I did a quick Google search, and here is a link to one of his articles, and it touches on the Manifesto a bit, but not in the detail that I remember from his presentation. See
http://rsc.byu.edu/es/archived/banner-gospel-wilford-woodruff/7-wilford-woodruff-and-rise-temple-consciousness-among-latte brianhales wrote:Hi – I’ve been invited to this website and have enjoyed reading the comments. I’m also pretty thick-skinned so if someone wants to disagree with me, that is okay.
Hold the phone!!!! I completely missed Brian’s response. I have almost no time at the present but will be asking you questions shortly. Sorry for overlooking you!
😳 I like Dax’s points. I think polygamy on earth is sexist and unfair. It expands a man’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously fragments a woman’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a wife.
However, it is also absolutely necessary in the eternities if exaltation occurs to couples only and if there are not exactly equal numbers of worthy men and women. We would need polyandry or polygyny (common polygamy).
It is important to acknowledge the suffering on earth caused by polygamy, but if Joseph Smith’s theology regarding exaltation is true, the suffering in eternity without it would be much great.
Just a thought,
Brian
Since Brian’s comment was his first comment here, it was held for approval before everyone could see it. When it was approved, it appeared in the order it was submitted, which means it got buried a bit in the thread. Brian,
I understand the mathematical argument, and I can appreciate it from an analytical standpoint (and even have used it to make a different point about how I see sealing and eternal relationships differently than most), but I hope you realize it’s not going to be much comfort for most people who see “plural marriage” of any sort as unacceptable – and I believe that describes the majority of members now and in the past. Most active members accept some form of sexual relationship continuing after death (even if I don’t), and mathematical / analytical views aren’t doing to lessen the “ick factor” one bit for them. That might be more true for women than for men, but it is true, I believe, even for the large majority of men in the Church.
I think polygamy is the elephant in the room that most members choose simply to ignore – taking it on faith that the math will work out in the end (perhaps by allowing those who can accept such an arrangement to participate, while allowing those who can’t accept it to live monogamously with a spouse).
Deleted What a privilege 
Brian, a few questions please.
1) “More women needing a husband in the next life.”
This makes no sense. We believe, for example, that children who die before 8 will get a ‘pass’ to the celestial kingdom. The birth rate is slightly skewed towards boys. There are around 10million under 8 deaths per year.
Mormon death rate was last reported as an annual 4/1000. That’s 0.5million. We’re taught that non-believing Mormons (those who didn’t keep their covenants) won’t go to the celestial kingdom. So if 200,000 of those deaths ‘qualify’ they are being outnumbered 50 to 1 by third-world infants. That’s before we even factor in the huge nations of the world or the people who lived before 1830 who haven’t heard the gospel. Mormon theology teaches that they will get the chance too.
There is no doctrine of more women making it than men.
There is no evidence of more women ‘qualifying’ than men. And male:female birth/death rates suggest it’s unlikely.
I’m not aware of any church leader teaching this as a necessity and if they have I don’t think they’ve really thought it through.
Is this something Joseph/Brigham taught?
brianhales wrote:I like Dax’s points.
I think polygamy on earth is sexist and unfair. It expands a man’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously fragments a woman’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a wife.
However, it is also absolutely necessary in the eternities if exaltation occurs to couples only and if there are not exactly equal numbers of worthy men and women. We would need polyandry or polygyny (common polygamy).
It is important to acknowledge the suffering on earth caused by polygamy, but if Joseph Smith’s theology regarding exaltation is true, the suffering in eternity without it would be much great.
Just a thought,
Brian
In case you get email notifications when people reply to your posts, I just posted a reason above why polygamy (1 man + multiple wives) doesn’t bear out in the statistics.
Question 2: Jacob 2:30 states, plural marriage is only permissible under two conditions:
Quote:
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
a) Did Joseph raise up seed? Only with Emma according to the DNA evidence. There are a couple of other ‘maybes’ but little to say he followed this instruction.
b) Where is the evidence that God commanded it before his marriage to Alger some time between 1833 and 1835? The best and earliest we have is a letter from Phelps in 1861 recalling Joseph discussing marriage to native Americans in 1831, followed by a conversation three years later where Joseph says this was to be done in the same way as the old patriarchs.
Is the memory of a man 30 years after the conversation really reliable? The references are pretty oblique. This recall was in the midst of Utah saints having to actively defend polygamy.
The 132 revelation was recorded in 1843.
Joseph reviewed/revised the D&C in 1843 (re-printed after his death in 1844) and left in the old section 101 (prohibiting plural marriage), passing up the opportunity to canonise 132. And this during a time when he was denying in public that he did practice it.
Section 101 remained in the canon until it was removed and replaced by 132 some 40 years after polygamy had already started.
So for the first 40-45 years of the church being in existence the only canonised doctrine was Jacob 2:30 (not until I command it) and the old 101 (we prohibit it). So why did our early leaders ignore scripture.
What evidence is there before 1861 that Joseph was commanded in 1831 to live it?
There’s a FAIR conference on, so Brian may be away for a couple of days.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.