Question about Polygamy (current policy)

[Anonymous]

That’s definitely a possibility, no question. Many people see it that way, many people do not.

mikethemormon wrote:

Is there any need to complicate maters further.

It’s as complicated as we choose to make it.

mikethemormon wrote:

After all, remembering that God the Father knows everything, do we really have to dig deep into doctrine and questions the prophets?

I find it interesting how you switched the subject mid sentence. God the father knows everything, do we have to question the prophets. Does anything change if the subject from the beginning of the sentence is the same as the subject at the end of the sentence?

God the father knows everything, do we really have to dig deep into doctrine and question god?

Questioning god might be fruitless… but it might still be useful because it can help us learn and understand god’s reasoning. It’s the same reason kids always follow up an adult’s explanation of things with yet another “Why?” Knowing the “what” is a part of the learning process, knowing the “why” is another important part in the learning process. This is were questions like “Why would god command polygamy?” and “Why would god later forbid it?” come into play. Some even take it a step further, “Did god command polygamy?” It’s a learning process.

The prophets know everything, do we really have to dig deep into doctrine and question the prophets?

Do prophets know everything? I suppose they can provided they ask god. Are the prophet’s interpretations of god’s communications always correct? Does a prophet always communicate god’s knowledge with everything they say or do they speak from their own limited knowledge from time to time?

Can’t I know for myself if I were to ask god directly? What if there’s a conflict between what god communicated to me and what the prophet communicated to me? Do I follow the prophet? Do I follow what I believe to be god’s answer? It’s a learning process.

You can see that for me the “It’s as complicated as we choose to make it” ship sailed a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

That’s definitely a possibility, no question. Many people see it that way, many people do not.

mikethemormon wrote:

Is there any need to complicate maters further.

It’s as complicated as we choose to make it.

mikethemormon wrote:

After all, remembering that God the Father knows everything, do we really have to dig deep into doctrine and questions the prophets?

I find it interesting how you switched the subject mid sentence. God the father knows everything, do we have to question the prophets. Does anything change if the subject from the beginning of the sentence is the same as the subject at the end of the sentence?

God the father knows everything, do we really have to dig deep into doctrine and question god?

Questioning god might be fruitless… but it might still be useful because it can help us learn and understand god’s reasoning. It’s the same reason kids always follow up an adult’s explanation of things with yet another “Why?” Knowing the “what” is a part of the learning process, knowing the “why” is another important part in the learning process. This is were questions like “Why would god command polygamy?” and “Why would god later forbid it?” come into play. Some even take it a step further, “Did god command polygamy?” It’s a learning process.

The prophets know everything, do we really have to dig deep into doctrine and question the prophets?

Do prophets know everything? I suppose they can provided they ask god. Are the prophet’s interpretations of god’s communications always correct? Does a prophet always communicate god’s knowledge with everything they say or do they speak from their own limited knowledge from time to time?

Can’t I know for myself if I were to ask god directly? What if there’s a conflict between what god communicated to me and what the prophet communicated to me? Do I follow the prophet? Do I follow what I believe to be god’s answer? It’s a learning process.

You can see that for me the “It’s as complicated as we choose to make it” ship sailed a long time ago.

God would never allow the prophet to lead the church astray. So, it means that when prophets speak and direct, it has the sanction of God. How do we know this is true?…because God said it through the prophet. How do we know the prophet is right?…because God will never allow the prophet to lie. Perfect circular argument,…and a VERY dangerous line of logic.

[Anonymous]

Prophets throughout history have made mistakes, even HUGE, serious ones. We can see that in every scriptural record we have, even the D&C.

They are not infallible, in theory or practice. Eliminating that simple fact (and I choose that word carefully and intentionally) is a dangerous thing. It opens the door for many negative consequences, some of which are serious.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Prophets throughout history have made mistakes, even HUGE, serious ones. We can see that in every scriptural record we have, even the D&C.

They are not infallible, in theory or practice. Eliminating that simple fact (and I choose that word carefully and intentionally) is a dangerous thing. It opens the door for many negative consequences, some of which are serious.

This being the case, it makes it even more strange why the cultural push, regardless of how much it is or isn’t taught, is for prophetic infallibility. “We can’t lead you astray…” talk. And, the 14 points that was referenced so recently.

When I read about the 2nd manifesto, and that it is almost completely unknown by the general membership…well, that gets me thinking. WW said: ” We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice…”

Hunh?

This was demonstrably false, as the 2nd manifesto illustrated as well as the Reed Smoot trials. Further,…the idea of male individuals having more than one spiritual wife is also part of this.

“Wo be unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell”….except if you are a GA….then you can lie for the lord. This whole thing, the shifting of moral standards and twisting things around is must disconcerting.

[Anonymous]

There is nothing strange about it. Times (polygamy being rescinded) and personalities (radically conservative leaders like Pres. Benson and others) drove doctrinal interpretation, just like other times (now) and far less radically conservative leaders (Elder Wirthlin, Pres. Hinckley, Pres. Uchtdorf, Elder Renlund, etc.) are driving different doctrinal interpretation.

We live now in a time of change, with the general view on lots of things in flux. The only thing that is constant throughout history in change and conflicting ideologies.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

There is nothing strange about it. Times (polygamy being rescinded) and personalities (radically conservative leaders like Pres. Benson and others) drove doctrinal interpretation, just like other times (now) and far less radically conservative leaders (Elder Wirthlin, Pres. Hinckley, Pres. Uchtdorf, Elder Renlund, etc.) are driving different doctrinal interpretation.

We live now in a time of change, with the general view on lots of things in flux. The only thing that is constant throughout history in change and conflicting ideologies.

I understand the point. The disconcerting thing is the moral imperative slide. In the position of one administration, there may be emphasis in areas that seem harsh and even cruel. An example is during SWK days. He encouraged Gay men to FORCE themselves into heterosexual marriages. Years later after massive divorce rates, that policy/doctrinal-encouragement was done away with; but what of the damage caused? How many people were hurt? So, there is a shift in administration, and policy as well.

Through administrations, however, is there not moral imperative? Are there not some things that are always fixed and stable?

With regards to polygamy (which is germane to this thread), I’ve read the WW manifesto. It said that they (meaning the church) were not performing plural marriages. There were still such marriages happening, and they weren’t done away with for some 2 decades later. So, you have this “party line” (as it appears to me) being told the world, while all along behind the scenes things were going on.

Hunh? Words don’t really mean what they say? Leaders say one thing and do another? How can this be telling the truth?

This is lying for the lord. I’m sorry,..but I can’t see it any other way. And, isn’t telling the truth a moral imperative?….and how can you say this is simply “doctrinal interpretation”? I see a mixed standard–the general LDS lay folk are taught that we are to tell the truth,…period. Those at higher levels, historically, did NOT tell the truth according to the same standard.

I draw the line with moral imperatives when it comes right down to it. And incidentally, I read a very well written article by G. Smith about when it is “higher” to tell lies…meaning there are situations where the correct moral pathway actually is to tell a lie. The example he gave, which DID happen (it wasn’t purely hypothetical) involved hiding Jews during the holocaust. If people asked you if you knew where some Jews were hidden, if you told the truth, they would be killed. if you refused to answer, this would arouse suspicion and they probably would be found and killed, and maybe even you. If you protested the question, this would also raise suspicion. The only answer that would have the greatest chance of saving lives and preventing murder was to tell a lie. G. Smith argued that circumstances during the Polygamy days justified this as men were being jailed and families broken up.

My question is: was there a compelling reason why telling lies actually was the higher pathway in this situation?

I have said before, that forgiveness is easier than denial. I believe there were lies being told. Period. Can we just admit that and quit tippie-toeing around the issue?

---

What about today,..and polygamy now?

It seems we have this fuzzy area now around the issue–everyone is freaked out about it. But instead of clarifying it, we ignore it and move on (but leave it in the scriptures, and refer to section 132 for certain things when you need)…etc. Every time a GA stands up and says they have a testimony of “The Scriptures”, they are saying they have a testimony of D&C 132. But, why the ambiguity about polygamy now, especially about the doctrine and how it relates to us? If there were no ambiguity, there wouldn’t be so much discussion about it on this site.

Just curious about that one.

[Anonymous]

Rob4Hope wrote:

With regards to polygamy (which is germane to this thread), I’ve read the WW manifesto. It said that they (meaning the church) were not performing plural marriages. There were still such marriages happening, and they weren’t done away with for some 2 decades later. So, you have this “party line” (as it appears to me) being told the world, while all along behind the scenes things were going on.

Hunh? Words don’t really mean what they say? Leaders say one thing and do another? How can this be telling the truth?

I wasn’t there and I hate making excuses for people, disclaimer disclaimed:

It sounds like leaders are every bit as flawed as everyone else.

I’m sure there are many members who drink alcohol, coffee, tea, etc. but if a leader did a press conference they would say something along the lines of “our members don’t drink alcohol, coffee, tea, etc.” There’s the where we’re at and where we’re working to be and I believe they are announcing where they want to be, regardless of current practice.

I can envision a scenario where it’s “but it’s really, really important, no one ever thought of this scenario, so just this one last time…” that quickly gets out of hand. It takes time for a ship to turn and ending polygamy was a big ship to turn.

I also see people making extreme justifications. Like inside someone’s head they are getting extremely clever with how they define polygamy. Well to me polygamy means this and they are asking if I do that, so clearly I don’t practice polygamy… how I define it. Justification made, crisis averted.

Honesty is such a slippery thing. Lying is something everyone else is doing and it’s something we often do to ourselves.

Rob4Hope wrote:

This is lying for the lord. I’m sorry,..but I can’t see it any other way.

I don’t see it as lying for the lord, I see it as lying to CYA. Did the lord tell them to lie or was it a man that was afraid of jail time lying and later justifying the lie? There’s the story of John Taylor’s “Three Nights Public Discussion” where he denies polygamy but it is claimed that he had something like 11 wives at the time of the denial. Was he lying for the lord or was he lying for the church? Was he lying for the lord or was he lying for himself? Who did Taylor fear more at the time, god or man? Now which version would he himself admit to? Which version would members want to immortalize the 3rd prophet with? The lord has become humanity’s scapegoat, well the lord or the devil. Anyone but me.

Rob4Hope wrote:

And, isn’t telling the truth a moral imperative?….and how can you say this is simply “doctrinal interpretation”? I see a mixed standard–the general LDS lay folk are taught that we are to tell the truth,…period. Those at higher levels, historically, did NOT tell the truth according to the same standard.

I think the leaders do get the same message, at least I sincerely hope the leaders are sitting in the same boring SS lessons that I sit in (except they will say the meeting was awesome and that I must be boring – P.S. we’re both right). There is one standard but no one lives it to a T, different people live it to different degrees. Should we hold leaders to a higher standard than most? I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

Perhaps the issue is with what the leaders “know” to be the truth. Maybe we could administer a history exam, anyone in a leadership position has to get a passing mark. :angel:

Rob4Hope wrote:

My question is: was there a compelling reason why telling lies actually was the higher pathway in this situation?

Maybe. Weren’t the early saints conditioned to expect an army at their doorstep every time they got nice and settled? I think we see the fears of church leaders laid out plainly in OD1:

Quote:

…all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice.

That outcome was what was compelling the saints.

Rob4Hope wrote:

I have said before, that forgiveness is easier than denial. I believe there were lies being told. Period. Can we just admit that and quit tippie-toeing around the issue?

Sure, everyone lies. Church leaders no exception.

Rob4Hope wrote:

Every time a GA stands up and says they have a testimony of “The Scriptures”, they are saying they have a testimony of D&C 132.

Does that mean they also have a testimony of tricking rival tribes into getting a circumcision and slaughtering them while they are recovering? Saying I have a testimony of “the scriptures” isn’t very meaningful to me.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Personally I feel church leaders are very divided on it.

I like this thought. Thanks for sharing.

My wife and I have gotten in more arguments on this topic than I care to remember. I think the ‘messyness’ is a consequence of believing in eternal families, and life after death. Can someone never get married again after their spouse dies?

[Anonymous]

azguy wrote:

My wife and I have gotten in more arguments on this topic than I care to remember. I think the ‘messyness’ is a consequence of believing in eternal families, and life after death. Can someone never get married again after their spouse dies?

I think it’s a Mormon Myth that we’re the only ones who believe in eternal families (not saying that you suggested this). Sure, I know some Christians who don’t believe that there are marriages in heaven, but most Christians would give you the side-eye if you were to suggest that in heaven they won’t be with their families. The thing that sets us Mormons apart is our emphasis on ordinances being necessary in order to stay with our families. I know people who see the Mormon mantra of “families can be together forever” more as a threat than a blessing. I must admit, sometimes I feel like I fall into that camp.

I personally don’t think the messiness of this has to do with the fact that we believe in eternal families. Maybe it does for General Authorities, who have gotten sealed to their second spouse, and have grown up knowing about the doctrine of polygamy (which has been denounced for this life only, not for the eternities-). Makes it hard for them to denounce it or give it up.

I think the issue for me, and for many people, have little to do with what happens if someone marries someone else after their spouse dies. It’s the way polygamy was implemented in the past that casts a very large shadow over everything. Whereas, someone wouldn’t be so bothered by the notion of their spouse marrying someone else after they die without the polygamy backdrop–now they have that legacy to go off of, which frankly, wasn’t very kind to women. Otherwise some would just assume that God would sort it all out in the next life, the same way my Christian friends assume it would be sorted out. Already some Mormons just assume God will sort the situation out. Also, because of our history with polygamy, even the way these types of situations are framed draw on the historical legacy of men being able to have one wife but women, not. It’s a messy history and unfortunately, in my opinion, is seriously hindering progress in how we deal with gender roles in this church.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Sure, everyone lies. Church leaders no exception.

Nibbler, I respect you. So, take this as not any type of peck toward you. Tongue and cheek coming….

WHAT!…..YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS! HOW DARE YOU!!!!!

No they don’t. They set the example for the rest of us. And, to say this Nibbler, you are speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed. I’m just saying….

---

[Anonymous]

Not everyone lies. i know a few people whom I believe tell the absolute truth, always.

I feel sorry for those with whom they are the closest.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Not everyone lies. i know a few people whom I believe tell the absolute truth, always.

I feel sorry for those with whom they are the closest.

I think it is possible to tell the truth, but doing so requires a high level of diplomacy in MANY situations. I understand when sometimes a white lie is compassionate.

[Anonymous]

My grandma (technically step-grandma) was married to a guy that suggested one day that they move to mexico and live polygamy. She said “Hmmmm… that’s interesting”, and then packed his bags and kicked him out.

…and then turned around and married a widowed guy (my grandpa) and became his second wife.

It never occurred to me how utterly strange that was – now that she’s getting older, she’s probably starting to think about it, now that he’s supposedly been with his first wife for the last 10 years.

[Anonymous]

marty wrote:

My grandma (technically step-grandma) was married to a guy that suggested one day that they move to mexico and live polygamy. She said “Hmmmm… that’s interesting”, and then packed his bags and kicked him out.

…and then turned around and married a widowed guy (my grandpa) and became his second wife.

It never occurred to me how utterly strange that was – now that she’s getting older, she’s probably starting to think about it, now that he’s supposedly been with his first wife for the last 10 years.

When I read this,…I shook my head. Yep…makes sense….and yep…is a dilemma.

[Author]

Posts