Common Sense Prophecy: Polygamy will be renounced by the LDS Church

[KMCopeland]

What about animal sacrifice Copeland? Were all the prophets in the Old Testament blood thirsty heathens? Or were they just confused?I want to know how much you want to parse the scriptures to fit your modern-day world-view.

Is someone using the fact that there was animal sacrifice in the Old Testament to justify doing it today?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Animal sacrifice was an ordinance while marriage is something far more meaningful, with esoteric aspects most people miss. However, as an ordinance those who accept the New Testament no longer sacrifice animals. But it should be noted that Muslims still sacrifice animals and I hope you do not consider that a sin.

I hope it's done humanely but no, it's nothing like polygamy. Polygamy requires setting aside everything we've been taught about morality in order to consider it non-sinful. I just can't do it.

When Joseph told Brigham about plural marriage, and that he'd have to participate in it, he said that it was the first time he desired the grave. That he would see a funeral and wish he was the one in the coffin. I feel that he was experiencing the Holy Ghost's witness that polygamy was wrong. But he loved Joseph, he'd staked his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor on the rest of his ideas, and he did what so many of us do: he stifled his own conscience/message from the Holy Ghost, and went along with it. Everyone else since then who has done that has my sincere compassion for having to make such a choice. I still think we have to make the right one. Even when it's hard. Especially when it's hard.

[KMCopeland]

Read my words carefully Cope, I said righteous in your discernment. You say polygamy is a sin. Prophets said, at least for a time, that it was a commandment. This implies that you are putting yourself in a position of superior discernment to the prophets. Either that or you are saying they were false prophets, in which case you may want to discuss that with your stake president. ;)

I shall take that under advisement.

[jbalm]

Read my words carefully Cope, I said righteous in your discernment. You say polygamy is a sin. Prophets said, at least for a time, that it was a commandment. This implies that you are putting yourself in a position of superior discernment to the prophets. Either that or you are saying they were false prophets, in which case you may want to discuss that with your stake president. ;)

The church recently put out some essays in which they claimed past prophets were wrong. It happens.

[KMCopeland]

Polygamy was established doctrinally by Brigham after Joseph's death, per Joseph supposedly having revealed it, but only having it come out 8 years after his death officially with a copy of the revelation which Brigham had had for that time.

This is a common claim by people who can't bring themselves to believe Joseph was the author of the doctrine of what he called celestial marriage. I always wonder what "doctrinally" means.

You could have a few crackpots swearing affidavits about anything. It's hard to dismiss them all. It's hard to dismiss everything so many of the church leadership of the day had to say about it at the time. How much they hated it, and were sure Joseph had lost his mind. More than one left over it. We grow up believing they were wrong. They may not have been. It's hard to dismiss the records of Joseph's 30-40 marriages. It's especially hard to dismiss his own words, much less his behavior. What he did with The Nauvoo Expositor comes to mind. But it's not impossible. As we know from sad experience.

A Hypothetical
What if Holland or Oaks or Pres. Monson at that, or anyone at that in the brethren really wanted to practice anew polygamy, and 8 years after the passing of President Hinkley, having already taken on multiple wives, they came out stating that they have a paper given them with a revelation from President Hinkley that God's desire is to institute plural wives again in order to be saved - and then we start getting reports of all these women stating they were married to Hinkley, and they sign affidavits (after he had passed of course) stating such, but these women then mostly are married to other polygamous men?

How likely would the membership believe such a claim?

Very unlikely. And it's 2015. Not 1840.

What do you propose to do with the Church's recent announcement that Joseph Smith did indeed have dozens of wives? Is this just a bunch of mean people ganging up on the prophet too?

[Fiannan]

I hope it's done humanely but no, it's nothing like polygamy. Polygamy requires setting aside everything we've been taught about morality in order to consider it non-sinful. I just can't do it.

What you have been taught? By whom?

[shadow]

Yep, Joseph was deep into polygamy despite what others seem to think. Way too much info out there to deny it. Somehow it's more acceptable for them if Brigham and those after him created polygamy. Somehow if those prophets were fallen, then everything is OK, but if Joseph did it, then the whole restoration teeters. That's what happens when one rejects truth like polygamy.

[KMCopeland]

But as for your idea that the church will ever renounce polygamy, I'm not optimistic. Renouncing polygamy means renouncing Joseph Smith. Renouncing Joseph Smith means renouncing the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The temple rites would have to go too, and then all we are is Methodists with a pioneer history. I just don't see it ever happening.

I'm surprised by this seemingly narrow-minded analogy, it is the same as saying that Christ in his ministry negated everything back to Adam for having taught against the church's leaders of his time, as the church of his mortal days was practicing the law of Moses and had the doctrines and teachings of such - or Lehi and his prophesying to the saints of Jerusalem ...

Help me see what I am missing here, as this really seems out of color for you to lump it all in because of one potential error, polygamy.

Joseph Smith produced the revelation(s) on polygamy. Renouncing polygamy casts doubt on his powers of revelation. It seems likely his other claims will come under scrutiny, like his account of Moroni's visitation, his translation of the Book of Mormon, likewise the PofGP and the D&C.

But maybe you're right. Maybe they can say "he was only wrong on polygamy," and nobody will question anything else he did. I just don't think it will happen that way. If it happens.

[SmallFarm]

Read my words carefully Cope, I said righteous in your discernment. You say polygamy is a sin. Prophets said, at least for a time, that it was a commandment. This implies that you are putting yourself in a position of superior discernment to the prophets. Either that or you are saying they were false prophets, in which case you may want to discuss that with your stake president. ;)

The church recently put out some essays in which they claimed past prophets were wrong. It happens.

The priesthood issue had no doctrinal basis, which was explained in the same essay you reference. No prophet ever said, "Hey this is what God told me." All quotes you could link me are simply their own interpretation of scripture, applied by men who were of a particular mind-set and could not handle the truth for their own bias.
The polygamy issue is quite another thing indeed and those of you that bear false witness against the Lord's servants are on dangerous ground... :ymsigh:

[KMCopeland]

I hope it's done humanely but no, it's nothing like polygamy. Polygamy requires setting aside everything we've been taught about morality in order to consider it non-sinful. I just can't do it.

What you have been taught? By whom?

Is that a question you're not really interested in the answer to? One that you're answering yourself?

I can't really tell what you're doing here. Very mysterious though.

[KMCopeland]

Yep, Joseph was deep into polygamy despite what others seem to think. Way too much info out there to deny it. Somehow it's more acceptable for them if Brigham and those after him created polygamy. Somehow if those prophets were fallen, then everything is OK, but if Joseph did it, then the whole restoration teeters. That's what happens when one rejects truth like polygamy.

Joseph Smith founded the Church. Polygamy was a big part of the church he founded. Seems more significant than his successors' blunders. But you're right. It might not be.

[sandman45]

Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth,
and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to
Abraham’s record, are called
God the first, the Creator;
God the second, the Redeemer;
and God the third, the witness or Testator

I was implying that Adam was God the First.. the creator.. Joseph was saying these 3 personages had a dispensation..

we know who the redeemer was and his dispensation correct?

well then who is the First and his dispensation?

who is the third and his dispensation.. slimjamm talked about who was the third.. Joseph was the
witness or testator and we know of his dispensation...

The First.. Joseph says Adam was the First, he is the father of all and had a dispensation that we know about.. his was the first dispensation (can't deny that right? pretty sure it is agreed upon) ..

Also in the quotes i put it says Adam holds the keys of all the dispensations and all will report to him.

I believe that is what Joseph was conveying.

[KMCopeland]

Read my words carefully Cope, I said righteous in your discernment. You say polygamy is a sin. Prophets said, at least for a time, that it was a commandment. This implies that you are putting yourself in a position of superior discernment to the prophets. Either that or you are saying they were false prophets, in which case you may want to discuss that with your stake president. ;)

The church recently put out some essays in which they claimed past prophets were wrong. It happens.

... No prophet ever said, "Hey this is what God told me."

I'm not sure that's true.

The polygamy issue is quite another thing indeed and those of you that bear false witness against the Lord's servants are on dangerous ground... :ymsigh:

I think those who don't call it out are the ones on dangerous ground.

[SmallFarm]

"I'm not sure that's true." great show me. I'm all about truth.

[jbalm]

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

[Fiannan]

I hope it's done humanely but no, it's nothing like polygamy. Polygamy requires setting aside everything we've been taught about morality in order to consider it non-sinful. I just can't do it.

What you have been taught? By whom?

Is that a question you're not really interested in the answer to? One that you're answering yourself?

I can't really tell what you're doing here. Very mysterious though.

Have you ever considered that the reason you believe that polygamy is wrong is because you were raised in an environment that stressed monogamy as the societal norm so strongly that you cannot even see the possibility that the people of the Bible had an entirely different world view?

And that their world view was more in line with what the God of the Old Testament had intended?

[KMCopeland]

The rest of your comments were just weird so I won't bother to address them.

=)) =))
YOU calling someone else's comments "just weird" is friggin' hilarious.

You're a good sport. All in good fun, right?

[ajax]

The polygamy issue is quite another thing indeed and those of you that bear false witness against the Lord's servants are on dangerous ground... :ymsigh:

Fear. I'm okay with being in the non-polygamy crowd and and being potentially thrust to hell for it.

[Fiannan]

Yes KMC

[KMCopeland]

Have you ever considered that the reason you believe that polygamy is wrong is because you were raised in an environment that stressed monogamy as the societal norm so strongly that you cannot even see the possibility that the people of the Bible had an entirely different world view?

Yes. I've considered that. And part of the reason it seems more forgiveable in the early patriarchs is that very thing -- that they lived in a different world than we do now. Polygamy wasn't even controversial, right along with animal sacrifice, stoning, not eating shrimp, etc. It was common. It probably was less of a religious precept, as Joseph Smith made it, than a cultural phenomenon. But this is another dispensation. We are supposed to be living a higher law now, not just regarding polygamy, but regarding all those unevolved, primitive customs of many thousands of years ago. I'd like to think we can rise to that challenge.

[slimjamm]

Yep, Joseph was deep into polygamy despite what others seem to think. Way too much info out there to deny it. Somehow it's more acceptable for them if Brigham and those after him created polygamy. Somehow if those prophets were fallen, then everything is OK, but if Joseph did it, then the whole restoration teeters. That's what happens when one rejects truth like polygamy.

Amen. It is impossible to state you accept individuals such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Brigham, etc. as prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, while in the same breath stating you only accept part(s) of the revelation(s) they received and were commanded to teach. In dismissing one, two, or all of these individuals, you also attempt to make a liar of Jesus Christ.
D&C 1:38

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

You don't have to like the idea of plural marriage, heck, you aren't even required to live it. But you cannot truthfully state you believe in and follow Jesus Christ, His apostles, the Plan of Salvation, the scriptures, and at the same time reject fully the law of Patriarchal Marriage. You either accept it all as truth, or must reject the whole of it. They are ALL interwoven and hang from the same truthful principles.

[Thinker]

It still is a pro LDS forum. Truth is not anti-Mormon. Many of us, though misguided, seek the truth. Reviling, however, I believe is anti-Mormon. Let us not revile one another.

Well put, Marc!

[KMCopeland]

It is impossible to state you accept individuals such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Brigham, etc. as prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, while in the same breath stating you only accept part(s) of the revelation(s) they received and were commanded to teach. In dismissing one, two, or all of these individuals, you also attempt to make a liar of Jesus Christ.

The only people in that list who claimed they were commanded to teach polygamy are Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. The rest of them practiced it because it was a cultural norm. They didn't teach it was essential to exaltation.

You don't have to like the idea of plural marriage, heck, you aren't even required to live it. But you cannot truthfully state you believe in and follow Jesus Christ, His apostles, the Plan of Salvation, the scriptures, and at the same time reject fully the law of Patriarchal Marriage.

Of course you can.

You either accept it all as truth, or must reject the whole of it.

Simply not true.

They are ALL interwoven and hang from the same truthful principles.

Which is why polygamy sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Fiannan]

But this is another dispensation. We are supposed to be living a higher law now, not just regarding polygamy, but regarding all those unevolved, primitive customs of many thousands of years ago. I'd like to think we can rise to that challenge.

And yet there are people who feel that polygamy is rising to the challenge of living a higher law.

This morning I went in for a health physical. In the waiting room there was a screen with various tips on healthy living, etc. One of the announcements however was for a large fertility clinic (part of a research hospital) that is desperately seeking sperm and egg donors. I would actually go in if I was in the age category they are seeking. The point is that more and more women are seeking sperm donations because they are in their 30s and unmarried and they don't want to miss their opportunity to have at least one baby. Polygamy would obviously be better for women willing to enter into it as their children would at least know their dad, as opposed to anonymous sperm donations. Even LDS women entering into lesbian marriages could avail themselves of this as they could marry a worthy man; and even if they did use artificial insemination the children would be born into a male-female family. Anyway, considering that many LDS couples have very little sex anyway then what difference would it make if a lesbian LDS couple were to marry a man if only for his name and fatherhood -- hey wait, doesn't the Bible predict that very thing for the future?

[slimjamm]

Copeland, please explain to me how you can accept a fullness while rejecting any part of it?? Please reconcile your stance and statements with what the Lord states in D&C 1:38. You have no scriptural or doctrinal backing whatsoever in declaring Abraham, Issac, Jacob were in fact sinning in regards to plural marriage. You instead have to make your own assumptions, such as, the Lord must be more merciful to them. Nonsense, and you know it. You state Joseph DID receive this doctrine as a revelation, yet state he was wrong in teaching it. Show me where the Lord stated this. Again, please reconcile Joseph receiving this revelation and the word's of the Lord in D&C 1:38. And while you're at it please provide the chastisement and condemning the Lord gave Joseph for doing this great evil. Might as well add the same towards Brigham, John, Wilford. It either must be accepted as a whole, or rejected as a whole. You're welcome to your silly idea of grasping bits and peices while calling it a fullness of truth. You should take your own advice and come to terms with the truth.

[TrueIntent]

Food for thought. D&C 84:54-57 says this:

"And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—"

So what were those former commandments? We need to learn about them and then DO according to that which was written. In other words, the commandments in the Book of Mormon still apply where they have not been explicitly rescinded. It would make sense for God to have a book written for us today and it actually apply to us now instead of contradicting new commandments. So with that, here's a former commandment:

Jacob 2:27,34: "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;...And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done."

And in the same sermon (Jacob 3:5): "Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them."

It was not a suggestion or a policy, it was a commandment. There is no record of this commandment in the Book of Mormon save for Jacob's words, but I'll bet it was spelled out in the Book of Lehi that was unfortunately lost to us. This commandment was never rescinded and God never commanded it for any reason in history except for one place in time allegedly. Here is Brian and Linda Hales, authors of "Joseph Smith's Polygamy" making an astouning claim:

"Do we know that polygamy will ever be commanded again? In the 6000 years of religious history, the only adherents to be commanded were the Latter-day Saints between 1852 and 1890. Upon what basis does anyone assert that it will be commanded again?" Brian and Linda Hales, http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/u ... fusion.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

D&C 84 was written in 1832, before any polygamy was going on. President Benson said we are still under condemnation, maybe it is because we still haven't paid attention to the Book of Mormon in this respect. I know, some might say, "Oh well polygamy isn't that important of a thing that God would hold people under condemnation."

Oh really? The Lord said "not only to SAY but to DO according to that which I have written [in the Book of Mormon]" and apparently the commandment to have only one wife (that the Lamanites were keeping) was the SOLE thing keeping them from destruction. I shared Jacob 3:5 above, here's the next verse:

"And now, this commandment they observe to keep; wherefore, because of this observance, in keeping this commandment, the Lord God will not destroy them, but will be merciful unto them; and one day they shall become a blessed people."

The word "commandment" is mentioned FOUR times in Jacob's sermon in relation to having one wife only. D&C 84 admonishes the modern church to "remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—"

This seems pretty clear to me, but that's my contribution to the discussion. The good news is that the modern church has mostly DONE according to the Book of Mormon commandment to have one wife but we still SAY a lot about it and support it verbally because we have to have perfect prophets. People make mistakes, even prophets. I don't know if they did or not, there's so much heresay and contradictions in the history that it is such a mess.

But what I've presented here seems to indicate that having only one wife is pretty darn important. Viewing church history through this lens explains a lot. It could explain Joseph's death, why the Lord didn't stand by and defend the Saints from getting driven and scattered and why the Church suffered so many difficulties until it shed itself from polygamy.

We no longer "do", but we still "say." Maybe we still need to completely purge ourself from this practice in order to truly "become a blessed people."

Outstanding insights. Thank you.

I also loved this post by 5tev3. It is definitely food for thought. I also thought he made a great point by quoting the Brian Hales paper. If plural marriage has only been "commanded" once in all of history, then why does the Doctrine and Covenants section 132 use prophets who practiced it as a justification. ...the Hales seem to contradict themselves all the time. (hence, even the title of their paper, "lending clarity to confusion".....I thought the Book of Mormon taught us that the truth is easy to understand. And yet, every paper they write is a 30 page response that I get lost in understanding. I was disappointed when I saw the church essays referenced some of the Hales work, because his work seems to make up excuses, and theories for why Joseph lied, or according to them, "used carefully worded denials"....really....call a spade a spade.