- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I don’t have much problem with the concept of plural marriage, especially the way much of it occurred before the move to Utah and the establishment of traditional polygamy. I think there definitely was a sexual attraction element to a few of the early ones; there was a consummation aspect to some of them (especially in the earlier years); there was NO sexual aspect whatsoever to many of them (especially the dynastic sealings of Joseph’s later life); there was a much more open consideration for women being sealed to multiple men (not just a man to multiple women) at one point; there was a fluidity and evolution going on all the way to Joseph’s death; it was the primary cause of Joseph’s death (all other excuses and reasons, notwithstanding); Joseph had a vision of the post-mortal life that didn’t translate very well into American society and that was still forming and changing in his own mind up to the day he died; polygamy solidified the LDS Church and “Mormons” as a distinct people or tribe in a very real way; etc. I think plural marriage was the biggest fulfillment of the statement that his name would be had for good AND evil – and I don’t see that statement as merely figurative. I believe Joseph very well could have had a vision of an angel with a drawn sword, but there is no record he shook that angel’s hand.
I’m not convinced Joseph wrote D&C 132. I don’t know (not at all), but it wouldn’t surprise me to know it was written after his death as a justification for polygamy. I really don’t know, but I am open to all possibilities with that section. At the core, I believe that anything is suspect if it needs the kind of justifications polygamy required (and if it doesn’t receive the support of even half of the people who are told it is critical) – and, again, I separate the concept of plural marriage (with which I really don’t have a problem when applied evenly for men and women) from the practice of polygamy (which I don’t like for multiple reasons).
QuestionAbound wrote:Thanks everyone. Lots to respond to.
Now then…perhaps I am starting to feel a “release” as I consider that section 132 is incorrect/non-inspired/wrong, etc.
However…the verbage is weighing on my mind.
So, let’s say that Joseph Smith was “experimenting” with revealed truths. It seems that toying with the heart of his wife would be a dangerous game to play.
:eh: If toying with it, then why would the entire section read as though the Lord himself were dictating the passage? Surely Joseph Smith didn’t fabricate the whole section…did he? Although, to find out that the “revelation” was pulled from a desk drawer after his death is of note…and a sour note at that.Hypothetical mind games are horrible…but if the Lord’s house is a house of order, then surely we can find the clarity for which our hearts yearn.
When I was at my point of despair over this…and in tears…asking why, if polygamy was “legal” in heaven, was it so one-sided? Why can’t the women love whomever they choose? You know…all of those questions that run through our minds. And, I’m telling you…the words that came into my mind were, “Suffer it to be so now.”
That right there was like the balm of Gilead. I stopped crying. I stopped breathing for a minute. I was soothed.
I am still “soothed” to a point, but it helps to find wonderful people like you who have gone down this road before…who can succor people like me…who aren’t angry or hostile or bitter.
I am so appreciative of your comments…all of them. To think that MAYBE…just maybe the mortal men who have led this church may have made some mistakes…and that we can follow what our hearts tells us is liberating.
Thank you!
This is the type of mental anguish and gymnastics you put yourself through when you try so very hard to hang on to some belief the church is true. Somehow you try and make things like PM sound rational. If you look at it from the outside as opposed to an insider trying to make sense of it all, it is much more plausible to just say the church was a construct of Joseph, and all the revelations were just his opinions. Delusional or pious fraud it makes no difference to the truth claim. In reality most issues tend to make more sense when you take the approach it was all fiction. Imagine just being able to say PM was just another brain spasm on the part of Joseph. No analysis needed. No trying to nuance crazy beliefs to find them palatable. It was all made up!!!
Quote:It was all made up!!!
Yeah, Cadence, that would be the easiest answer – but I personally don’t think it fits the totality of the evidence very well.
QuestionAbound wrote:…but if the Lord’s house is a house of order, …
I’m sure it is, but we don’t live in the Lord’s house; …we live here on earth, and mortal life is messy. We may strive toward the Lord’s house, but we’ll always be human.
When I think of the early church’s practice of polygamy and its former practice of denying the priesthood to men of black ancestry i can’t help but think of the following passages of scripture found in the Book of Mormon: jacob 2:23-29 (Plural Marriage)
Quote:
23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
2 Nephi 26:23-28,33 (None are forbidden to come unto Christ)
Quote:
23 For behold, my beloved brethren, I say unto you that the Lord God worketh not in darkness.24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.
25 Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price.
26 Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.
27 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.
28 Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
QuestionAbound wrote:If D&C 132 were removed, would that, in effect, remove the ideology of an eternal family unit?
I’ve had that exact same question. It’s problematic because the eternal family is one of the very best LDS doctrines, perhaps THE best… while plural marriage IMO is one of the very worst, perhaps THE worst.I think if the Church ever does refute polygamy; stating that it is not from God, they will have to acknowledge that JS was operating on revelation from God as a basis, his own interpretations of the Gospel, and his filling in the blanks as best he understood it. I don’t think there is anything as scary in saying this. After all, that is exactly what we do today, individually and in the Church. If he did have God as a real provider of knowledge, even if it was incomplete, it’s way superior to anyone operating without God-given knowledge. Once the Church makes that statement they can explain polygamy as JS filling in the blanks around the God-given truth of celestial marriage (single).
It’s unfortunate that D&C 132 is our best source of the concept of sealing for Time & Eternity, but it IS clear that JS preached and administered this doctrine. The only scriptural reference I can find to it outside of 132, is its neighbor 131 (
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131?lang=eng I believe the Church can navigate these waters much more easily than most expect. All they have to say is that Celestial Marriage was a true principal, and that plural marriage was an add-on by a well-intentioned, but wrong JS, and that the FP has sought guidance on this matter from God and received confirmation to this effect. This would become Official Declaration 3. It’s only when we get super-analytical about the history as our guide, without seeking the power of modern revelation, that we get into trouble. If we have a prophet, he should be able to seek the answer from God.
OON, That’s a great reply. Thanks so much. Official Declaration #3 would be awesome if it stated that!
What I don’t understand (and maybe you can help me on this) is… if JS created polygamy to “fill in the blanks” of eternal marriage…what is the connection?
I mean, if someone said, you can be married to your husband forever, I would NOT immediately think, “Okay! That means I can also have 4 husbands if I want them!” There just isn’t a logical explanation for the “fill in the blanks” theory.
If plural marriage means that both men and women can have multiple partners for creating worlds, that would make way more sense…how can we bind women to loving just one man (when we are the ones with tender hearts), but permit men to love multiple women and still call it fair and just?
I have heard that JS had a vision of heaven or a dream or something and in order to explain it, he created eternal marriage and polygamy. I’m thinking…uh…wouldn’t he have prayed about giving instruction like that to church members before doing so? *Assuming PM is wrong as it was practiced, hidden and then preached.
QuestionAbound wrote:OON, That’s a great reply. Thanks so much.
Official Declaration #3 would be awesome if it stated that!
What I don’t understand (and maybe you can help me on this) is… if JS created polygamy to “fill in the blanks” of eternal marriage…what is the connection?
I mean, if someone said, you can be married to your husband forever, I would NOT immediately think, “Okay! That means I can also have 4 husbands if I want them!” There just isn’t a logical explanation for the “fill in the blanks” theory.
If plural marriage means that both men and women can have multiple partners for creating worlds, that would make way more sense…how can we bind women to loving just one man (when we are the ones with tender hearts), but permit men to love multiple women and still call it fair and just?
I have heard that JS had a vision of heaven or a dream or something and in order to explain it, he created eternal marriage and polygamy. I’m thinking…uh…wouldn’t he have prayed about giving instruction like that to church members before doing so? *Assuming PM is wrong as it was practiced, hidden and then preached.
1)Hyrum says that he was first introduced to PM in the context of his being eternally sealed to his deceased wife AND his current living wife.
2)The female perspective wasn’t represented because all the policy makers were men. It would seem that JS’s original questions about PM originate when he translates the OT and ponders the anchient patriarchs having multiple wives – something that was part of their anchient male dominated culture. When JS interprets a visionary experience he does so from his male perspective – that is one degree of separation. When BY further institutionalised PM – he does so again with his male perspective. We are now at least two degrees removed from any inspiring vision without any female perspectives to help balance.
3)The last question is the hardest. If JS was “filling in the blanks” and was sometimes in error – What does that mean if the “error” was something very similar to adultury? What does it mean that subsequent prophets ran with the error and only discontinued it under serious threat from the US federal government? Whatever your conclusions of this question, – is it terribly different than with the priesthood ban? It was introduced in error. It was defended and promulgated in error for a long time in error. It was finally discontinued as leaders were forced to take a critical look at it and realize that it is not a part of the gospel.
QuestionsAbound, All very good questions… I don’t have the answers. There are a number of reasons why the eternal marriage doctrine could lead to the concept of plural marriage… not defending here, because I think it was a terrible practice that got JS killed and sent the next generation of the Church into perpetual trials… but here are some things that could contribute to the evolution from eternal marriage to plural marriage in the mind of a spiritual leader acting on his own accord, without God directing it:
– In 19th-century America, people frequently outlived a spouse and remarried. This was common both in and out of the Church. Enter the doctrine of eternal marriage and immediately confusion abounds.
– Abraham was called the “father of many nations” after having two sons, each from a different woman. It’s easy to make the leap that the eternal increase of a man could be accommodated via multiple wives, though the reverse would not be true… or at least not as obvious.
– JS clearly gave importance to family relationships. I believe he used polygamy… eternal polygamy… as a way to form eternal family bonds; linking families in the hereafter, sort of the way nations are joined into alliances via royal marriages.
– In those days, men were dominant. Men owned the business, men interacted with the political world, men built the cities and towns and roads, men provided. The Church existed in those times, and was a product of those times. Men were the dominant (priesthood) power. God was a male, with unnamed female or females living with him in the “Kindgom of God”… According to section 132, men entered glory… and his wives were “given unto him”… “that he may be glorified.” That is just the way it was. I’m glad we live in better times. This can still be an issue in the Church, though. Recently, I heard a bishop praise his wife, but it came out as sort of a back-handed complement… he said that he was grateful to have “a good woman” “behind me”… I really cringed. I fully believe that what he meant to say was more like, “I’m so grateful to be married to my wonderful wife. She is a great support to me in my overwhelming duties as a bishop and I don’t know what I’d do without her. We try to support each other. She has had difficult callings in the past, too, and in retrospect, I I wish I had helped her more.” But, alas, he chose words that came straight out of the mindset of 19th century America, where the Church often seems to be stuck, and most people in the congregation probably didn’t even notice.
On Own Now wrote:QuestionsAbound,
— In those days, men were dominant. Men owned the business, men interacted with the political world, men built the cities and towns and roads, men provided. The Church existed in those times, and was a product of those times. Men were the dominant (priesthood) power. God was a male, with unnamed female or females living with him in the “Kindgom of God”… According to section 132, men entered glory… and his wives were “given unto him”… “that he may be glorified.” That is just the way it was. I’m glad we live in better times. This can still be an issue in the Church, though. Recently, I heard a bishop praise his wife, but it came out as sort of a back-handed complement… he said that he was grateful to have “a good woman” “behind me”… I really cringed. I fully believe that what he meant to say was more like, “I’m so grateful to be married to my wonderful wife. She is a great support to me in my overwhelming duties as a bishop and I don’t know what I’d do without her. We try to support each other. She has had difficult callings in the past, too, and in retrospect, I I wish I had helped her more.” But, alas, he chose words that came straight out of the mindset of 19th century America, where the Church often seems to be stuck, and most people in the congregation probably didn’t even notice.
The more I read about polygamy, the more appalled I am. Anything in the church and the temple that flows from demeaning ideas in section 132 is offensive. This bishop – maybe he’s a male chauvinist, maybe he misspoke. Domineering, abusive men in and out of the church always find ways to justify themselves. But part of reason I am longing for a repudiation of polygamy is that nearly every man I know in the church is much more like my husband. He and I are not perfect, together or alone, but he is loving, esteems himself no better than me, a true partner, faithful in every way. And he treats woman he works with at church or in the workplace with respect. I want the dead weight of polygamy off women, and men, too. If Section 132 was a product of its time, let us be products of OUR time. It’s better now. “Let Zion in her beauty rise,” I say.
Ann, I agree. The Church doesn’t practice it anymore, but there it is, right there in black and white in our “modern scriptures”. I love what you said about it not representing US. I believe that. My thinking is that the Church ever does refute it, there will be a party in the streets… not a riotous party… one that starts with a prayer, ends at 9, and people stay around to clean up… but a party, nonetheless. I truly believe you’d see the biggest smiles you’ve seen at Church in a long time. On Own Now wrote:QuestionAbound wrote:If D&C 132 were removed, would that, in effect, remove the ideology of an eternal family unit?
I’ve had that exact same question. It’s problematic because the eternal family is one of the very best LDS doctrines, perhaps THE best… while plural marriage IMO is one of the very worst, perhaps THE worst.It’s unfortunate that D&C 132 is our best source of the concept of sealing for Time & Eternity, but it IS clear that JS preached and administered this doctrine.
I think the wording in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” is enough:
Quote:WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children…The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
That should be put in the D&C along with any other necessary clarifications.On Own Now wrote:My thinking is that the Church ever does refute it, there will be a party in the streets… not a riotous party… one that starts with a prayer, ends at 9, and people stay around to clean up…..
The best kind of parties! (I’m serious.)
Section 132 as written is full of logical errors. You can marry a second wife if she’s a virgin and your first wife agrees. But if she doesn’t agree, then you can anyway. Those two sentiments contradict each other and are both in there. The whole thing is far too circular to be inspired by anything but self-justification, and Ray’s idea is possible too. Maybe it was written later to justify actions that were already in the past. Richard Bushman talks of the desire to unite all people together as relatives (we say brother and sister for a reason, one we seldom think much about now), not just sealings for sexual coupling. There were a lot more relationships going on. I have also heard the analogy of networked computers which seemed like an interesting way to look at it.
As for what the church can do about polygamy, how can they disavow it when so many of the top leaders (and many lay members) descended from polygamists? In a church where we revere our forebears that becomes problematic. I find the practice repugnant on every level, but I do understand that saying so would be harsher for someone with ancestors who participated.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Section 132 as written is full of logical errors. You can marry a second wife if she’s a virgin and your first wife agrees. But if she doesn’t agree, then you can anyway. Those two sentiments contradict each other and are both in there. The whole thing is far too circular to be inspired by anything but self-justification, and Ray’s idea is possible too. Maybe it was written later to justify actions that were already in the past.
Perfect way to say it: The whole thing is far too circular to be inspired by anything but self-justification.
That is
exactlywhat I think…but I really struggle with articulation…forming my thoughts into words. You hit the nail on the head. If The Lord had inspired it (dictated it, as the section reads), then it would have been more clear and straightforward. What gets me in the section is this:
subsequent wives need to be virgins…how many married women did JS marry? So right off the bat he was breaking the rules…doesn’t seem very “prophet-ish” to me.
and
when it says that a woman cannot marry another unless the other is “appointed her”…I’m thinking…there is a glimmer of hope that PM can go both ways…which would be an amazing way to create worlds without end…one great big family creating another really big family for the many worlds they will inhabit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.