What IS the Current Church Position on Polygamy?

[Anonymous]

Interesting thought Shawn, of course the major difference is there is no revelation to reference in support of the priesthood ban.

[Anonymous]

Bear wrote:

Where is that quote taken from?

I’m not sure if you really want to source since you included a smiley, but here it is:

Quote:

Church Statement Regarding ‘Washington Post’ Article on Race and the Church

Salt Lake City — The Church issued the following statement today in response to news media requests:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

Hey, Orson. Thanks for responding.

Orson wrote:

Interesting thought Shawn, of course the major difference is there is no revelation to reference in support of the priesthood ban.

Very good point. I’ll just add that the reasons why it was practiced are unclear (or just don’t make sense), despite what is said about that. It really is not known precisely how or when the practice began. We think it started with Fanny Alger, but the records are dubious. Many things are unclear. Section 132 is questionable.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

Interesting thought Shawn, of course the major difference is there is no revelation to reference in support of the priesthood ban.

What about the following? I think this is one of the “revelations” that Church leaders used to justify the racial priesthood ban:

Abraham 1:21-27 wrote:

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth…From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land…The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham…When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land…Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood….Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry…

Maybe this is easier to ignore or say it shouldn’t be interpreted that way than D&C 132 because that particular “revelation” also happens to be the primary source of possibly the Church’s single favorite sales pitch to try to explain why people should want to be good obedient Mormons so they can supposedly have eternal families unlike the unworthy heathens. However, there is definitely a precedent for picking out a few scriptures Church leaders like to support their favorite points and largely ignoring the rest. For example, the following seems to directly contradict the temple marriage idea if taken literally so of course we never hear about it in Church lessons and talks:

Mark 12:18-25 wrote:

Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,…Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother…Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed…And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise…And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also…In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife…And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?…For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

[Anonymous]

There are lots of philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, even in the LDS Church – especially when ancient scripture is used as the foundation.

Of course, since I don’t accept any scripture as the infallible word of God, that’s easier for me to say than for many others – but that’s true of any religion that accepts ancient scripture and, therefore, has to struggle with how to interpret it. I think polygamy, like the ban, is a great example of why we are warned against accepting anything blindly – even what prophets believe(d). As I’ve said in other threads, I view polygamy less harshly than many of you here, but I still think it’s a prime cautionary tale about seeing things, including scriptures, as inerrant and people, including prophets, as infallible.

[Author]

Posts