Context of Polygamy in the Book of Mormon

[MMbelieve]

I think this conversation isn't really going anywhere because there's a significant difference in personality type and thinking patterns between Arenera and some of the rest of the skeptics who've posted here. Arenera seems to fit the pattern of ISFJ, or ESFJ ("sentinal/protector") personality type (of the Meyer-Briggs personality types) which is marked by traits such as loyalty, honoring of tradition, a tendency to take things personally, and resistance to change.
Debates such as this dealing with a religion's history seem to be difficult for those of ISFJ or ESFJ type as even objective discussions of historical people and events can be mistaken as attacks on deeply held beliefs.

Thanks for the free test.

Should someone be loyal to God? Abraham showed he was loyal. Also had more than one wife. Was Nephi loyal to the prophet, his father? When Lehi murmured, Nephi still respected him and asked him where to go to find food. Christ talked to Lehi for 3 hours.

Joseph Smith was selected to be the Prophet of the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, that came with a commitment and covenant with Joseph Smith and God.

Restoration of Celestial Marriage, including plural wives is part of this dispensation. This wasn’t appealing to Joseph, so God sent an angel with a sword. Joseph respected God’s command.

The skeptics haven’t provided objective information. Dislikes, mocking, name calling, distraction.

Be loyal to God, which includes sustaining our leaders.

Joseph had no children outside of Emma. He keeps being referred to as a polygamist but how so? He didn't have any other kids. I don't get it.

[nvr]

Many people make this mistake of treating stories from the bible as patterns to follow rather than stories imbued with warnings.


Jacob emphasized this point in the Book of Mormon:

Covered.

And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people.

Oriental tradition was for the conqueror take over the conquered's land, house, servants, everything. By Jewish laws (Genesis 2:22-24, Deuteronomy 17:17, Matthew Matt 19:9) , David would not have been justified in actually marrying and having relations with any of these women. He would have been expected to be responsible for their well-being at most. This passage in Samuel you're paraphrasing shows the irony that David, despite all of those who, according to the tradition of the times, 'belonged' to him, yet went out and took another man's wife, and had the husband killed. This passage was NOT a tacit approval of polygamy as Jacob in the Book of Mormon explicitly points out.
Here's the actual quote of Jacob 2:30 you partially quoted, as it appeared in 1840 edition:
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.
The context of this passage has been covered and very clearly details that God will lead his people when he wants to establish and raise his seed by doing things like leading them to a promised land (as alluded to in earlier passages). If he fails to do this (otherwise:), they will end up hearkening unto these things ("things" are the abominations of concubines and multiple wives referred to earlier throughout the chapter). The Book of Mormon was written for our day. It is consistent and can be applied to past, present and future. This passage was not just meant for the Nephites at that time as the chapter heading implies.

Your interpretation is not consistent with the Church’s and leaders positions.

This is not just my interpretation - it is plainly spelled out in the Book of Mormon. We all ought to remember that confirmation bias can easily blind us from truth even in the presence of plentiful historical context.
The last person I remember speaking about this was Pres. Hinckley who said that it was not doctrinal. This is also what Joseph Smith always said. I support their viewpoints.

Whatever our leaders say, this is a good piece of advice. It was given by Brigham Young (1862):

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

[Jesef]

25 pages later: Polygamy is IRRELEVANT.

The current Brethren will have to disavow it & D&C 132 in order to convince some TBM's that this would so. It's easier just to leave D&C 132 alone, have people read it today as if it's referring to monogamy, and keep on moving.

[Arenera]

Whatever our leaders say, this is a good piece of advice. It was given by Brigham Young (1862):

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

So you agree that Brigham Young was a Prophet and God condoned him practicing polygamy!

[Arenera]

25 pages later: Polygamy is IRRELEVANT.

The current Brethren will have to disavow it & D&C 132 in order to convince some TBM's that this would so. It's easier just to leave D&C 132 alone, have people read it today as if it's referring to monogamy, and keep on moving.

Durzan did a great job reviewing D&C 132!

[Finrock]

You are wrong FR.

Polygamy was commanded by God in this dispensation. It is that simple.

Has nothing to do with the blacks, or your relationship with the Church, or if you dislike polygamy personally.

You start with doubt and that clouds your judgment.

Also from one of the skeptic mockers: So dumb.

Also, you should apologize for falsely asserting that nobody has provided objective arguments/evidence and that the only response you have gotten to your position is ridicule, mocking, put downs.

There have been all sorts of rational counter arguments, appeals to historical facts, etc. as evidence against your chosen position. This is demonstrably true. My post where I put my counter arguments front and center is not the first or the only one.

In fact, the objective truth is that you have done nothing to counter these reasonable arguments that call your position in to question. In response you have been dismissive and just continued to assert your position. In fact you have acted like an internet troll. This is demonstrably true as well.

-Finrock

See, you name called.

That's not name calling. Calling people out on their behavior that can be demonstrated by facts, is not name calling. Its just identifying your behavior.

You have exhibited behavior consistent with an internet troll. Your response here is another example. I've approached you with all sincerity, Arenera. Although I've interacted with you on many occasion on this forum and I know your MO, I still started out by assuming the best of you. I've invited you to engage with me sincerely/rationally and I've demonstrated that I'm willing to do the same. In response to rational, benevolent, sincere, and reasonable arguments that counter your position, you have been dismissive, just repeating your assertion, ignoring the counter evidence, lying about people's responses, etc. This is behavior consistent with an internet troll. You have acted like an internet troll. If you aren't one, you certainly have been and are acting like one. Objective, demonstrable fact. Not name calling.

name-calling: "the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts" (emphasis mine)

"name-calling is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem"

I have provided rational, fact-based arguments against your ideas and your beliefs. I have only identified your behavior that can be demonstrated by an objective review of your posts and responses.

-Finrock

[Arenera]

I'm going to put the rational arguments and objective arguments that counter your position front and center for anyone to see:

Arenera's Argument: Everything that the Church/Church leaders teach is true/good/right, therefore polygamy must be good/right/true.
Polygamy is condoned by God when He commands. He commanded Joseph Smith.

Second Counter Argument (Fallacious): Appeal to Authority is Fallacious reasoning - "Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered" (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... -Authority). "Logical Form: According to person 1, who is an expert on the issue of Y, Y is true. Therefore, Y is true."

Confirmed with God, as instructed in Moroni 10.

-Finrock

The rest of your argument has no bearing on polygamy.

[nvr]

Oriental tradition was for the conqueror take over the conquered's land, house, servants, everything. By Jewish laws (Genesis 2:22-24, Deuteronomy 17:17, Matthew Matt 19:9) , David would not have been justified in actually marrying and having relations with any of these women. He would have been expected to be responsible for their well-being at most. This passage in Samuel you're paraphrasing shows the irony that David, despite all of those who, according to the tradition of the times, 'belonged' to him, yet went out and took another man's wife, and had the husband killed. This passage was NOT a tacit approval of polygamy as Jacob in the Book of Mormon explicitly points out.
Here's the actual quote of Jacob 2:30 you partially quoted, as it appeared in 1840 edition:
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.
The context of this passage has been covered and very clearly details that God will lead his people when he wants to establish and raise his seed by doing things like leading them to a promised land (as alluded to in earlier passages). If he fails to do this (otherwise:), they will end up hearkening unto these things ("things" are the abominations of concubines and multiple wives referred to earlier throughout the chapter). The Book of Mormon was written for our day. It is consistent and can be applied to past, present and future. This passage was not just meant for the Nephites at that time as the chapter heading implies.

Your interpretation is not consistent with the Church’s and leaders positions.

This is not just my interpretation - it is plainly spelled out in the Book of Mormon. We all ought to remember that confirmation bias can easily blind us from truth even in the presence of plentiful historical context.
The last person I remember speaking about this was Pres. Hinckley who said that it was not doctrinal. This is also what Joseph Smith always said. I support their viewpoints.

Whatever our leaders say, this is a good piece of advice. It was given by Brigham Young (1862):

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."

So you agree that Brigham Young was a Prophet and God condoned him practicing polygamy!

You nailed it.

[Durzan]

25 pages later: Polygamy is IRRELEVANT.

The current Brethren will have to disavow it & D&C 132 in order to convince some TBM's that this would so. It's easier just to leave D&C 132 alone, have people read it today as if it's referring to monogamy, and keep on moving.

Durzan did a great job reviewing D&C 132!

Thanks, glad someone noticed.

[Durzan]

25 pages later: Polygamy is IRRELEVANT.

The current Brethren will have to disavow it & D&C 132 in order to convince some TBM's that this would so. It's easier just to leave D&C 132 alone, have people read it today as if it's referring to monogamy, and keep on moving.

...Umm no it ain't. I spent the whole darn day reading just that one section and dissecting it. Polygamy is far from being irrelevant; when enacted and applied correctly it is a powerful and righteous principle... but like all complicated mechanisms all it takes to screw it up is just a single weak link. D&C 132 is established as a Celestial Law, and therefore polygamy is a part of it. Reading that section only cemented my views on polygamy, and indeed may have helped to strengthen my testimony of it. Indeed, as I established in one of my earlier posts, it is arguably essential to ensuring that all those in the Celestial Kingdom have the opportunity to be exalted. There are SEVERAL groups of people who would be screwed over on exaltation if Polygamy isn't part of the celestial law, who would otherwise qualify.

Though many have and will likely continue to abuse it whenever its enacted in mortality, polygamy is actually a Tender Mercy of the Lord in the Eternities.

[Finrock]

25 pages later: Polygamy is IRRELEVANT.

The current Brethren will have to disavow it & D&C 132 in order to convince some TBM's that this would so. It's easier just to leave D&C 132 alone, have people read it today as if it's referring to monogamy, and keep on moving.

Durzan did a great job reviewing D&C 132!

Thanks, glad someone noticed.

Durzan,

Your response was too much for me at the moment. I realize you put a lot of energy in to these posts, but, I just can't put the amount if energy required to properly address your post at the moment. Is there a way for you to summarize your position in to more manageable bites?

Thanks

-Finrock

[MMbelieve]

The daughter of the polygamist Brown family was denied baptism at age 19 because she wouldn't distance herself or denounce her parents lifestyle. She not a child, she an adult and was hurt by the rejection.

If celestial plural marriage is so beautiful and holy and wonderful why then was this person denied baptism (the first saving ordinance of the gospel on her very SOUL) because her parents are known polygamist?

[MMbelieve]

25 pages later: Polygamy is IRRELEVANT.

The current Brethren will have to disavow it & D&C 132 in order to convince some TBM's that this would so. It's easier just to leave D&C 132 alone, have people read it today as if it's referring to monogamy, and keep on moving.

...Umm no it ain't. I spent the whole darn day reading just that one section and dissecting it. Polygamy is far from being irrelevant; when enacted and applied correctly it is a powerful and righteous principle... but like all complicated mechanisms all it takes to screw it up is just a single weak link. D&C 132 is established as a Celestial Law, and therefore polygamy is a part of it. Reading that section only cemented my views on polygamy, and indeed may have helped to strengthen my testimony of it. Indeed, as I established in one of my earlier posts, it is arguably essential to ensuring that all those in the Celestial Kingdom have the opportunity to be exalted. There are SEVERAL groups of people who would be screwed over on exaltation if Polygamy isn't part of the celestial law, who would otherwise qualify.

Though many have and will likely continue to abuse it whenever its enacted in mortality, polygamy is actually a Tender Mercy of the Lord in the Eternities.

What groups of people are you referring to? And how do you suppose so many will need polygamy to be exalted?

[BackBlast]

This topic persists, and I feel to add to it.

The use of the term gospel has been warped in our common use in the church. Scripiturally, it is strictly that Christ performed the atonement that we may have faith on him, repent, and enter the gate through baptism of water and fire. You look how it is clearly defined in the scriptures and this is the sum and whole of it, both 2 Ni 31 and given by Christ himself in 3rd Nephi lay this out.

In common use in the church it is conflated with truth and church doctrine in a loose sort of way. This isn't bad of itself, per say, a word is a word and we can invent new ones whenever we like. But it causes a confusion when speaking between groups using the word differently. Such semantic evolution can cause some stumbling blocks in understanding over time when we begin to mis understand their use in generation spanning texts.

Regardless, a common semantic basis, or language, is required for two people or groups to communicate ideas clearly, and arguing over it is spending time in setup rather than actual engagement of ideas.

I prefer

gospel: Good news of Christ, as simply defined in the scriptures.
doctrine: Teachings of the church.
truth: Something that is eternal fact, be it event (past, present, or future) or principle.

Polygamy has been a doctrine of the church. This is, I believe, established beyond question. Leadership has taught it distinctively and clearly. Finrock's point, I believe, is that being a doctrine for a length of time does not necessarily make it also eternal truth. I generally agree with this, the infallibility doctrine has been taught by leadership and it is contradictory to other teachings and principles. Though most members don't take it to the logical extreme that reveals it's problems. A useful logical exercise.

So, while I accept that being a doctrine does not mean that something is, in fact, truth. The support for infallibility and the support for polygamy being truth is quite different. Infallibility is based upon the idea that the church will not have another complete apostasy before...

...this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness

But with a rather illogical extension that the prophet will simply never teach something that is wrong. I understand at least some of the historical conditions where it was created, so it is certainly something I can forgive even if it's stumbling blocks continue into the present. It is also quite unique to the present, this concept was not taught by past prophets that I have found and has essentially zero cannon scriptural support.

Polygamy is a different animal. It has clear an unambiguous scriptural support. There is historical precedent by both honored fathers and by others who it is attributed as a wicked practice. I believe this establishes that there is, potentially, a right way and a wrong way to practice it. The Lord's rejection of King Saul's sacrifices comes to mind as a wrong way to practice something and how it can be a curse and result in rejection by the Lord.

For the scriptural/spiritual support for polygamy being eternal truth in the celestial kingdom. We have D&C 132 as cannon scripture, and it is not just cannon in the 1800s during the practice, but it continues today through other changes being made in cannon. In fairness, this doctrine is not currently generally taught. But where the rubber meets the road, the policies for eternal temple sealings are a confirmation of the practice. This church, to date, has honored this as eternal truth for 170+ years.

I believe that the evidences of the Lord's not supporting the practice in the early church is fairly evident in the historical view. Much like the struggles to establish Zion early, with commandments and opportunities given and left unfulfilled and unsupported, at least yet. The church did not prosper much through this period, it barely grew. We would have been driven again from our lands and homes again had we not forsworn the practice. They were, likely, doing it wrong. The story of this dispensation is replete with our struggles as a people to do things right, with failure after failure. With each subsequent generation, I believe, making greater strides on the backs of our ancestors, until we can build Zion.

I do not find such a rejection to be conclusive evidence against. It has happened at other times when a people do not live up to receiving the promised blessings or protection.

With all that in mind. I believe that the sure way to know is to ask the Lord directly and get your own conclusion with a personal view into the celestial kingdom and it's practices. There have been such anxieties and requests in my family. These have resulted in several sacred experiences for the recipients, and for what it's worth from this random church member and internet poster - they have confirmed the practice as an eternal truth.

[Durzan]

The daughter of the polygamist Brown family was denied baptism at age 19 because she wouldn't distance herself or denounce her parents lifestyle. She not a child, she an adult and was hurt by the rejection.

If celestial plural marriage is so beautiful and holy and wonderful why then was this person denied baptism (the first saving ordinance of the gospel on her very SOUL) because her parents are known polygamist?

What do you think let to it being banned in the first place? We had to distance ourselves from it because the bloody US government put a bloody gun to our head! We had no choice. Polygamy wasn't being instituted properly among the Mormon population, and I suspect that we weren't repenting. So the Lord saw fit to take it away, and we did an about 180° on our stance regarding it to recover. Polygamy when properly instituted and followed in conjunction with the Law of Consecration, is a powerful tool for the righteous. When improperly and incorrectly implemented however, it does far more damage than good. If Polygamy was being implemented in full righteousness, the Lord would've fought our war. But we as a people are prideful and stubborn, and let the corruptions of men weigh us down too much.

The vestiges of Polygamy are still there in our doctrine, customs, policies, and so forth. But we don't teach it actively, and we actively foreswear those who have maintained it out of habit; and it doesn't help the fact that those splinter groups are dwindling either. Polygamy left a bitter taste in our mouths, and we are reluctant to actively pick it up again. Despite this fact, I suspect that we will have need to pick it up again at some point in the future. There IS a reason Heavenly Father left it in the D&C these past 100 years.

Polygamy is a critical component for Celestial Law, but it is NOT required to be followed in order for an individual to become exalted. It is a choice that only a small handful of righteous individuals will choose to take. It requires you to make a willing and continual sacrifice of love and service to all within the bond, as in the Celestial Kingdom it would allow those otherwise unable to be exalted to have the opportunity. It is a stewardship for both the men and the women who are christ-like in nature to partake of, but those who do successfully endure will be blessed even further.

[Jesef]

25 pages later: Polygamy is IRRELEVANT.

The current Brethren will have to disavow it & D&C 132 in order to convince some TBM's that this would so. It's easier just to leave D&C 132 alone, have people read it today as if it's referring to monogamy, and keep on moving.

...Umm no it ain't. I spent the whole darn day reading just that one section and dissecting it. Polygamy is far from being irrelevant; when enacted and applied correctly it is a powerful and righteous principle... but like all complicated mechanisms all it takes to screw it up is just a single weak link. D&C 132 is established as a Celestial Law, and therefore polygamy is a part of it. Reading that section only cemented my views on polygamy, and indeed may have helped to strengthen my testimony of it. Indeed, as I established in one of my earlier posts, it is arguably essential to ensuring that all those in the Celestial Kingdom have the opportunity to be exalted. There are SEVERAL groups of people who would be screwed over on exaltation if Polygamy isn't part of the celestial law, who would otherwise qualify.

Though many have and will likely continue to abuse it whenever its enacted in mortality, polygamy is actually a Tender Mercy of the Lord in the Eternities.

For us, under current directives (in the Church), YES, it is practically irrelevant. For doctrine & understanding & even some men's hopes & wishes who are sealed to subsequent spouses after being widowed, perhaps slightly relevant, in a hypothetical next-life context. That's what I mean by irrelevant - it literally does not apply to us. And, since the earth is well-populated, and the Church's numbers are higher than ever, in history - there should never be a need to practice it again for the sake of "raising up seed" - the supposed interpretation being applied in this thread to Jacob 2:30. NO ONE has been able to explain why, if this was really God's MO in the case of needing to "raise up seed", He didn't employ it at the very beginning with Adam & 55xEve's (yes, that's a dig at Brigham's abuse of the principle, IF it is even a true principle).

Durzan, it seems you won't admit that polygamy is VERY POSSIBLY JUST FALSE/WRONG, that D&C 132 might be a false production. No matter how you read it, you have to twist it to reconcile it with Jacob 2 - which flatly condemns David & Solomon for having many wives and concubines as abominable whoredom, while D&C 132 starts out with the ludicrous inquiry (given Jacob 2) of why God would justify same said David & Solomon in having many wives & concubines. Jacob 2 doesn't say - only in the case of Uriah - it just flatly condemns "many wives and concubines" - & we're not even addressing CONCUBINES - WTH? Anyway, your scriptural exegesis and hypothetical closed-system logic interpretations all rely on D&C 132 being TRUE - which means it can all just be flat out crap with one simple possibility admitted: Polygamy just could be wrong, D&C 132 could be an 1852 production, or BY & JS were wrong about it, along with all the frightening tales about angels and swords = God threatening people to whom He reveals this "oh so holy, have many women" practice, which MUST be obeyed or be DESTROYED! That's such crap and mystifying it and aggrandizing and putting an aura of esotericism around it doesn't change that.

That's my opinion. Polygamy breaks women's hearts and devalues them, whether men practice it under the guise of being "condoned by God" or not. Jacob had nothing good to say about it - and we've already presented a reasonable alternative interpretation to what he might have meant that makes a lot more sense in the context of the whole chapter.

[nvr]

The daughter of the polygamist Brown family was denied baptism at age 19 because she wouldn't distance herself or denounce her parents lifestyle. She not a child, she an adult and was hurt by the rejection.

If celestial plural marriage is so beautiful and holy and wonderful why then was this person denied baptism (the first saving ordinance of the gospel on her very SOUL) because her parents are known polygamist?

What do you think let to it being banned in the first place? We had to distance ourselves from it because the bloody US government put a bloody gun to our head! We had no choice. Polygamy wasn't being instituted properly among the Mormon population, and I suspect that we weren't repenting. So the Lord saw fit to take it away, and we did an about 180° on our stance regarding it to recover. Polygamy when properly instituted and followed in conjunction with the Law of Consecration, is a powerful tool for the righteous. When improperly and incorrectly implemented however, it does far more damage than good. If Polygamy was being implemented in full righteousness, the Lord would've fought our war. But we as a people are prideful and stubborn, and let the corruptions of men weigh us down too much.

The vestiges of Polygamy are still there in our doctrine, customs, policies, and so forth. But we don't teach it actively, and we actively foreswear those who have maintained it out of habit; and it doesn't help the fact that those splinter groups are dwindling either. Polygamy left a bitter taste in our mouths, and we are reluctant to actively pick it up again. Despite this fact, I suspect that we will have need to pick it up again at some point in the future. There IS a reason Heavenly Father left it in the D&C these past 100 years.

Polygamy is a critical component for Celestial Law, but it is NOT required to be followed in order for an individual to become exalted. It is a choice that only a small handful of righteous individuals will choose to take. It requires you to make a willing and continual sacrifice of love and service to all within the bond, as in the Celestial Kingdom it would allow those otherwise unable to be exalted to have the opportunity. It is a stewardship for both the men and the women who are christ-like in nature to partake of, but those who do successfully endure will be blessed even further.

Why would we have to sacrifice to live it when there's an equal ratio of men to women? I'm not seeing the dilemma this is solving. I guess you'll go with the logic that not many men are making it to the Celestial Kingdom.

Why is it a critical component? It seems like a headache to all involved and hurt feelings to spare.
Is the reason it was left in the D&C for 100 years going to turn out to be the same reason the policy of blacks and the priesthood went unchanged for 100 years as well? How do you know it won't be the same?

[Jesef]

Old men marrying young maids, their granddaughters' and great-granddaughters' ages, is just sick. And I think the guys trying to justify it, like in Brigham's & other's cases, are sick, too.

[Arenera]

Old men marrying young maids, their granddaughters' and great-granddaughters' ages, is just sick. And I think the guys trying to justify it, like in Brigham's & other's cases, are sick, too.

More name calling.

As one of the skeptics, what is the position you guys think you have brought up?

[Arenera]

Baloney. Nice try at justifying D&C 132. But it could just be false, a production of man. And so is polygamy. That's what I (& many) truly believe - today. If marriage exists in Heaven/Eternity, it is not 1-Male-to-Many-Females. But feel free to defend the hypothetical and unprovable. It doesn't matter. In practice, in this world, which is the only practical measure we have: polygamy sucks big time, for the women. Heartache, neglect, loneliness, generation gap, lack of true intimacy and soulful connection. It's nothing but harmful in every example when compared to the height of possibility in a love-filled romantic and soul-intimate monogamous union of 1 male and 1 female. Ask ANY healthy Woman (who isn't cult-minded or mentally ill). A female soul is equivalent (in every way) to a male soul. Polygamy is unnecessary. Polygamy is harmful. Polygamy is NOT ideal. Polygamy is crap. Final answer.

Skeptics, is this your position?


This is really DS Deja Vue. People started following DS and many of them left the Church.

Are you planning on leaving?
Staying and hoping for an announcement?
Working underground?


I don’t think it would be easy to believe this way and have it not affect how you believe about the Church and Leaders.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

25 pages later: Polygamy is IRRELEVANT.

The current Brethren will have to disavow it & D&C 132 in order to convince some TBM's that this would so. It's easier just to leave D&C 132 alone, have people read it today as if it's referring to monogamy, and keep on moving.

...Umm no it ain't. I spent the whole darn day reading just that one section and dissecting it. Polygamy is far from being irrelevant; when enacted and applied correctly it is a powerful and righteous principle... but like all complicated mechanisms all it takes to screw it up is just a single weak link. D&C 132 is established as a Celestial Law, and therefore polygamy is a part of it. Reading that section only cemented my views on polygamy, and indeed may have helped to strengthen my testimony of it. Indeed, as I established in one of my earlier posts, it is arguably essential to ensuring that all those in the Celestial Kingdom have the opportunity to be exalted. There are SEVERAL groups of people who would be screwed over on exaltation if Polygamy isn't part of the celestial law, who would otherwise qualify.

Though many have and will likely continue to abuse it whenever its enacted in mortality, polygamy is actually a Tender Mercy of the Lord in the Eternities.

Holy moly. It only took Brigham Young 10 minutes to ask someone to write sec 132. You spent the entire day dissecting it.

[BackBlast]

For us, under current directives (in the Church), YES, it is practically irrelevant. For doctrine & understanding & even some men's hopes & wishes who are sealed to subsequent spouses after being widowed, perhaps slightly relevant, in a hypothetical next-life context.

That's kind of a cold view. I find the question of what happens in the next life when sealed to a second spouse to be very important. That spouse probably would like to understand as well I'd imagine.

That's what I mean by irrelevant - it literally does not apply to us. And, since the earth is well-populated, and the Church's numbers are higher than ever, in history - there should never be a need to practice it again for the sake of "raising up seed" - the supposed interpretation being applied in this thread to Jacob 2:30. NO ONE has been able to explain why, if this was really God's MO in the case of needing to "raise up seed", He didn't employ it at the very beginning with Adam & 55xEve's (yes, that's a dig at Brigham's abuse of the principle, IF it is even a true principle).

There are other scripture pairs and sets that appear to contradict one another. Such as those that state we are subject to kings and rulers, and yet others that justify rebellion and taking up arms. It is interesting to contrast them for further enlightenment rather than say one needs to be rejected as incompatible....

Durzan, it seems you won't admit that polygamy is VERY POSSIBLY JUST FALSE/WRONG, that D&C 132 might be a false production. No matter how you read it, you have to twist it to reconcile it with Jacob 2 - which flatly condemns David & Solomon for having many wives and concubines as abominable whoredom, while D&C 132 starts out with the ludicrous inquiry (given Jacob 2) of why God would justify same said David & Solomon in having many wives & concubines. Jacob 2 doesn't say - only in the case of Uriah - it just flatly condemns "many wives and concubines" - & we're not even addressing CONCUBINES - WTH? Anyway, your scriptural exegesis and hypothetical closed-system logic interpretations all rely on D&C 132 being TRUE - which means it can all just be flat out crap with one simple possibility admitted: Polygamy just could be wrong, D&C 132 could be an 1852 production, or BY & JS were wrong about it, along with all the frightening tales about angels and swords = God threatening people to whom He reveals this "oh so holy, have many women" practice, which MUST be obeyed or be DESTROYED! That's such crap and mystifying it and aggrandizing and putting an aura of esotericism around it doesn't change that.

So, you don't understand, thus to make your world view make sense, you advocate that we should simply ignore what you don't like.

[MMbelieve]

The daughter of the polygamist Brown family was denied baptism at age 19 because she wouldn't distance herself or denounce her parents lifestyle. She not a child, she an adult and was hurt by the rejection.

If celestial plural marriage is so beautiful and holy and wonderful why then was this person denied baptism (the first saving ordinance of the gospel on her very SOUL) because her parents are known polygamist?

What do you think let to it being banned in the first place? We had to distance ourselves from it because the bloody US government put a bloody gun to our head! We had no choice. Polygamy wasn't being instituted properly among the Mormon population, and I suspect that we weren't repenting. So the Lord saw fit to take it away, and we did an about 180° on our stance regarding it to recover. Polygamy when properly instituted and followed in conjunction with the Law of Consecration, is a powerful tool for the righteous. When improperly and incorrectly implemented however, it does far more damage than good. If Polygamy was being implemented in full righteousness, the Lord would've fought our war. But we as a people are prideful and stubborn, and let the corruptions of men weigh us down too much.

The vestiges of Polygamy are still there in our doctrine, customs, policies, and so forth. But we don't teach it actively, and we actively foreswear those who have maintained it out of habit; and it doesn't help the fact that those splinter groups are dwindling either. Polygamy left a bitter taste in our mouths, and we are reluctant to actively pick it up again. Despite this fact, I suspect that we will have need to pick it up again at some point in the future. There IS a reason Heavenly Father left it in the D&C these past 100 years.

Polygamy is a critical component for Celestial Law, but it is NOT required to be followed in order for an individual to become exalted. It is a choice that only a small handful of righteous individuals will choose to take. It requires you to make a willing and continual sacrifice of love and service to all within the bond, as in the Celestial Kingdom it would allow those otherwise unable to be exalted to have the opportunity. It is a stewardship for both the men and the women who are christ-like in nature to partake of, but those who do successfully endure will be blessed even further.

Are you suggesting that over 100 years later we have a gun to our head to not baptize a grown woman with polygamist parents?

[MMbelieve]

Can anyone say what the purpose of a man having many wives in heaven is? What is it that takes 2 women to do that 1 woman is not capable of doing? Why is polygamy so critical?

Whatever the reason is, it should include rational logic and a sound purpose and reason. No just because or its in the scriptures or someone famous did it a long time ago.

I'm asking why and for a logical purpose and explainaition.

Perhaps address it as a little child or to a little child. Keep it blasted simple. Marriage is not complicated so if polygamy is too complicated then perhaps it's not something anyone should be defending like they know Gods thoughts on the matter.

[Durzan]

The daughter of the polygamist Brown family was denied baptism at age 19 because she wouldn't distance herself or denounce her parents lifestyle. She not a child, she an adult and was hurt by the rejection.

If celestial plural marriage is so beautiful and holy and wonderful why then was this person denied baptism (the first saving ordinance of the gospel on her very SOUL) because her parents are known polygamist?

What do you think let to it being banned in the first place? We had to distance ourselves from it because the bloody US government put a bloody gun to our head! We had no choice. Polygamy wasn't being instituted properly among the Mormon population, and I suspect that we weren't repenting. So the Lord saw fit to take it away, and we did an about 180° on our stance regarding it to recover. Polygamy when properly instituted and followed in conjunction with the Law of Consecration, is a powerful tool for the righteous. When improperly and incorrectly implemented however, it does far more damage than good. If Polygamy was being implemented in full righteousness, the Lord would've fought our war. But we as a people are prideful and stubborn, and let the corruptions of men weigh us down too much.

The vestiges of Polygamy are still there in our doctrine, customs, policies, and so forth. But we don't teach it actively, and we actively foreswear those who have maintained it out of habit; and it doesn't help the fact that those splinter groups are dwindling either. Polygamy left a bitter taste in our mouths, and we are reluctant to actively pick it up again. Despite this fact, I suspect that we will have need to pick it up again at some point in the future. There IS a reason Heavenly Father left it in the D&C these past 100 years.

Polygamy is a critical component for Celestial Law, but it is NOT required to be followed in order for an individual to become exalted. It is a choice that only a small handful of righteous individuals will choose to take. It requires you to make a willing and continual sacrifice of love and service to all within the bond, as in the Celestial Kingdom it would allow those otherwise unable to be exalted to have the opportunity. It is a stewardship for both the men and the women who are christ-like in nature to partake of, but those who do successfully endure will be blessed even further.

Are you suggesting that over 100 years later we have a gun to our head to not baptize a grown woman with polygamist parents?

*Sighs exasperatedly* No, no I am not. I am saying that we had a gun to our heads 100 years ago forcing us to abandon polygamy, and that ever since then we've been stuck in the mindset that was the natural result of being forced to suddenly abandon it. The hurtles we'd have to go through just to revive the practice are enormous.

1. Polygamy is still technically illegal, and we are a church that professes to obey the laws of the land, so as long as the laws remain in place, we cannot even think about resuming the practice of polygamy.

2. Even if the law was repealed right this moment Declaration 1 is still in church canon. In order to resume polygamy, we would need another revelation from God authorizing us to again practice it in the flesh. Otherwise, polygamy will still serve as a vital anchor in the CK due to the statistical inevitability of a gender imbalance (whether slight or significant).

3. If both those things happened, many of the current membership would probably outright reject it, or actively fight against it. This means that as a people we would be predisposed to screwing it up a second time. We would need to have a zion-like society and mentality in order for Polygamy to actually do what it is supposed to do on earth. Luckily in the CK, its already zion-like in nature, and thus the problems that come with polygamy in the mortal life are avoided.

Ultimately, Polygamy in mortality is in a similar state of limbo to that of the Law of Consecration. Completely impractical on earth unless some major stuff happens to warrant the establishment of a zion-like mentality and society among the members of the church. Hint: we ain't even close right now.