Stephen M and his comments about the recent PR film put out by the church entitled “Mormon Myths and Reality” inspired this post.
Today’s LDS Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:61 reads:
“And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.”
This is not defunct scripture, nor has this verse been removed from our canon. Yes we stopped practicing polygamy because of legal/political/governmental adversity, but I’m not sure that we ever renounced the belief. Doesn’t polygamy remain fundamental Mormon doctrine in 2008?
Am I wrong, or is Stephen trying to distance us from the scripture? How should members reconcile the scripture with PR videos like this, which seem to show a detestation for polygamy?
Is this doctrine one of the main reasons that our pioneer ancestors risked life and limb to cross the plains? Don’t we teach that the family is central to Mormon doctrine, and isn’t any scriptural teaching about family worth our respect? Especially if we’re still practicing it (as my mother) in our temples?
Should the scripture be changed, or should we stop speaking out so harshly against polygamy? I struggle with this sometimes.
Meg Stout said: “The fascinating thing about 132 is that it clearly is follow-up to an earlier revelation that is no longer extant where Joseph was told to give Emma up, or where Emma was commanded to take another husband.”…..
What is this earlier revelation that is no long extant? What is the source for this info?
Thanks
The source of the info is the Doctrine and Covenants. Meg is making a reference to the 51st verse of 132: “Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.”
Clearly this implies an existing revelation with a sacrificial imperative was in effect for Emma at the time of the receipt of D&C 132. The nature of the intended sacrifice has been speculated by many scholarly types, in light of other “Issac-type” sacrifices that Joseph reportedly asked of saints to try their faith. But to my knowledge we don’t have anything solid as per what exactly had been asked of Emma.
An interesting anecdote: I was talking to an Arab friend of mine about adoption. I asked him what he would do if his wife could not conceive. He said, “Oh, I’d get another one I guess.” It took me a moment to realize what he was saying; at first I thought he meant divorce, but that wasn’t it… He’d get ONE MORE wife. When I explained that having multiple wives was illegal in the United States and a sure source of persecution, he was outraged. He didn’t understand the western position at all, and even went on to protest that it was part of his religion, the practice of which is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
We had an involved conversation about polygamy. In regards to how polygamy-practicing countries see love, it was a real eye-opener for me. He didn’t see it as a problem at all; quite the contrary. And I have little doubt that he loves his wife… he says romantic things about her during casual conversation more frequently than many other married acquaintances of mine.
I find polygamy to be repugnant, but I have now been forced to wonder if I don’t find it so because I have grown up in a society where monogamy is strongly emphasized in depictions of ideal love. My ideas about ideal love are well-instilled. The effect of innumerable instances throughout my life involving depictions of monogamous romantic love and monogamous nuclear family values leading to associations of “monogamous” with “ideal” can’t be overemphasized. The love that westerners practice is so all-encompassingly represented in media and society that it’s impossible for most westerners to disassociate love from monogamy.
We see love as private and exclusive, and hence the main problem (if not the only problem) with polygamy is sexual jealousy. Certainly we are hardwired for that type of jealousy as part of rational self-interest; any evolutionary psychologist would be quick to point that out. But a quick glance at the context in which eastern polygamy arouse lends another perspective as for why it might be part of rational self-interest for social ideals of romantic love to permit polygamous relations. Let’s take Abraham as an example. He was led by the Lord into a hostile environment with poor agricultural conditions and aggressive neighbors, where the land he was promised came with occupants and his property rights were enforced by himself. In Abraham’s society, having a big family didn’t mean awesome family reunions. It meant survival and power; in those terms, under primitive conditions polygamy works. It produces a collective naturally imbued with connectivity and loyalty far beyond what can be otherwise outsourced to another party. These people are less likely to leave in order to start their own colony. They are interested in expanding and maintaining the viability of the Abrahamic franchise, thus the bigger Abraham’s family, the more stuff they enjoy as a group. In the mathematics of big families, polygamy can’t be beat.
There are other strong socially stabilizing factors associated with polygamy that are often ignored. The Nobel prize-winning economist Stephen Levitt points out the crime-lowering effects of abortion in his book “Freakonomics”. Basically, his research just points out that undesired children from unstable homes are exponentially more likely to lead criminal lifestyles. Abortion takes care of undesired children. So abortion lowers crime.
It’s an easy extension from stabilization caused by legal abortion to stabilization induced by polygamy. Why do women get abortions? Here’s the reasons given in a study conducted among 1700 women having abortions a few years ago (Torres, Aida and Jacqueline Sarroch Forrest, Family Planning Perspectives, Volume 20, Number 4, July/August 1988, p. 170.):
-Woman is concerned about how having baby would change her life 16%
-Women can’t afford baby now 21%
-Woman has problems with relationship/wants to avoid single parenthood 12%
-Woman is unready for responsibility 21%
-Woman doesn’t want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant 1%
-Women is not mature enough, or is too young to have child 11%
-Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown children 8%
-Husband or partner wants woman to have abortion 1%
-Fetus has possible health problem 3%
-Woman has health problem 3%
-Woman’s parents want her to have abortion 1/2%
-Woman was victim of rape or incest 1%
-Other 3%
Numerous other studies have shown that the leading factor in predicting criminal behavior is presence of a father in the home. That’s above socio-economic status, race, and education. Polygamous societies are better able to meet the needs of women in terms of providing an environment where children are desired. By the same curious mechanism as abortion, polygamy increases social stability and lowers crime. And as a nice side-effect, polygamy decreases abortion rates as well. That at least fits the “multiply and replenish the earth” profile.
This doesn’t erase MY (perhaps socially-imbued) ideas about what ideal love is, and it doesn’t give me any insight pertaining to how it is exactly God sees polygamy in the eternities, but I can appreciate some practicality in polygamous practices, and that in itself is relieving. Knowing that polygamy has positive elements, and that there are other humans out there, whole societies of them, that form meaningful loving relationships with plural wives, lends some credulity to Joseph’s revelation of what just might very well be the mechanics of godly eternal social constructions.
I almost lost my testimony over the fact that polygamy was ever practiced and could possibly be. I went into a dark place that I could not get out of. I was told by my father 4 weeks before I was married that there was polygamy in heaven. I loved my husband so much and could not go on living if there was polygamy in heaven. I spent months reading, praying and crying and finally an answer came to me- I felt that Christ was literally next to me and understanding exactly how I was feeling as if he were me. He has authority to do anything and I felt that he would take care of everything and that my happiness and peace was above everything. I experienced this 7 years ago and it saved me. I have a stronger testimony and know now that Christ will take care of everything (and I will NEVER live polygamy)- I feel peace about that!
There’s an alternative reading I’ve heard proposed for verse 51 of Section 132 that seems to fit accomodate the “Abraham” reference even better: As a test of his faith, Joseph was ordered to poison Emma’s food, but Emma then refrained from eating it. Bizarre, I know, but only slightly less so than the “give-Emma-another-man” interpretation.
As I look around at nature, I notice that there does not seem to be an imbalance. God seems to have organized patterns and an order to things.
When Noah was commanded to build the ark, he brought living things in two at a time, male and female. He did not bring in one male and three females. I believe Polygamy is NOT a celestial thing but a commandment that is entered to in life whenever the balance and order are threatened. It never was intended for long periods of time, as the balance in nature eventually returns. The notion that there will be more females than males in the Celestial Kingdom is a bias against males and seems ridiculous, at best. There are commandments that we have been given that are higher in the order of things—such as love your neighbor as yourself. Which could mean that a Young or Kimball would potentially give up wives to great neighbor guys killed in the Civil War, etc.
Temple ordinances give us all the chance for eternal parentage and keeps things organized. Women are now being sealed to more than one husband after death. This was not a practice untill recently. People will have a choice. Free agency is also another principle that LDS people adhere to. A loving God gives us all many chances for success. The LDS also believe that we are learning and progressing even in the spirit world. There is no doubt in my mind that our creator knows how to do math and believes in equality and order in the Universe and in his kingdom.
Does anyone secretly question that the prophet made a misjudgment or mistake on this revelation? It has caused the church a great deal of problems and the introduction into our American society of polygamy has created situations among other sects that are horrendous. If you question it, does that mean you don’t believe Joseph was a prophet? I believe he is a prophet but I wonder as to this revelation. I read accounts that women were saddened to their core over it and the thought of that kind of life boils my blood with innate and natural jealousy a woman has for the love of one man.
I read my comment from yesterday and visited here to see if anyone addressed my comments. I want to add, also, that I have been contemplating this doctrine for quite some time and cannot digest it as a right decree from Heavenly Father. Women do not desire to become a goddess of their own world, mother children for eternity and share a husband. We just want to walk alongside our Savior and be with our families for eternity, which includes our one husband who is devoted to only us. Heavenly Father put that desire within women’s hearts to have all a man’s love, not split with other females. This is not heaven to us. Why on earth would that be our final reward? This whole idea is self serving and does not glorify Heavenly Father in any way, and absolutely gives no benefit or incentive to make it to the celestial kingdom for a female.
In obedience to this commandment, many have gone forth and taken upon themselves a plurality of wives; consequently, they are not condemned in this thing, so far as the Book of Mormon is concerned; and we consider this book to be part and portion of our religious creed; and the Constitution of America gives people a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. But our opponents say no person has a right to commit crime under that saying. I admit it. But prove that polygamy is a crime. You can prove that murder, stealing, and cheating your neighbor are crimes. You can prove a great many things to be criminal, from the Bible and from reason. If you search the great commentaries on law, they will inform you that all criminal law is founded on Divine revelation. When Divine revelation points our a crime, they generally adopt it as such, and attach penalties. The Bible is the foundation of most of the criminal laws of Christendom. Point out in the Bible where polygamy is a crime, and then you may say we have no right to embrace it as part of our religious creed, and pretend it as part of our constitutional rights. If we embrace murder, stealing, robbing, cheating our neighbour, as a part of our religious rights, then the Constitution will condemn us. Not so with polygamy. If we should embrace adultery in our religious creed, then we may be condemned as criminals by the laws of God and man; but when it comes to polygamy, which is not condemned by the Bible any more than monogamy, and embrace that as a part and portion of our creed, the Constitution gives us an undeniable right of worshipping God in this respect as in all others. Congress have no more constitutional right to pass a law against polygamy than they have to pass a law against monogamy, or against a man living in celibacy.
Sermon by Elder Orson Pratt, Sen., delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, July 24, 1859.
Reported by G. D. Watt.
I disagree that the practice of polygamy necessitates an inequality between men and women. I also don’t believe it is necessarily true that men have exploited and oppressed women since the dawn of time – much of this exploitation and oppression is with regard to our conceptions, and doesn’t attempt to understand history in terms of the people who live it.
I will not try to outline here why I have come to these conclusions, when Ken Wilber and other evolutionary biologists and sociologists have expressed it so much better.
But when it comes to our assumptions about polygamy, much of what we know just ain’t so.
“In relation to all these matters, the safe path for the Saints to take is, to do right, and, by the help of God, seek diligently and honorably to maintain the position which they hold. Are we ashamed of anything we have done in marrying wives? No. We shall not be ashamed before God and the holy angels, much less before a number of corrupt, miserable scoundrels, who are the very dregs of hell. We care nothing for their opinions, their ideas, or notions; for they do not know God, nor the principles which he has revealed. They wallow in the sink of corruption as they would have us do; but, the Lord being our helper, we will not do it, but we will try to do right and keep the commandments of God, live our religion, and pursue a course that will secure to us the smiles and approbation of God our Father. Inasmuch as we do this He will take care of us, maintain His own cause, and sustain His people. We have a right to keep His commandments. But what would you do if the United States were to bring up an army against you on account of polygamy, or on account of any other religious subject? We would trust in God, as we always have done. Would you have no fears? None. All the fears that I am troubled with is that this people will not do right—that they will not keep the commandments of God. If we will only faithfully live our religion, we fear no earthly power. Our safety is in God. Our religion is an eternal religion. Our covenants are eternal covenants, and we expect to maintain the principles of our religion on the earth, and to possess them in the heavens. And if our wives and children do right, and we as fathers and husbands do right in this world, we expect to have our wives and children in eternity. Let us live in that way which will secure the approbation of God, that we, his representatives on the earth, may magnify our calling, honor Him and maintain our integrity to the end; that we may be saved in His celestial kingdom, with our wives, and children, and brethren, from generation to generation, worlds without end. Amen.”
Remarks by Elder John Taylor, made in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April. 7, 1866.
Reported by G. D. Watt.
Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, “that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed.” When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. It is so far, then, a religious institution, that it affects my conscience and the consciences of all good men—it is so far religious that it connects itself with time and with eternity. What are the covenants we enter into, and why is it that Joseph Smith said that unless this principle was entered into this kingdom could not proceed? We ought to know the whys and the wherefores in relation to these matters, and understand something about the principle enunciated. These are simply words; we wish to know their signification.
…..
Previous to this revelation, who in all the world had any claim upon their wives in the eternal world, or what wife had a claim upon her husband? Who ever taught them any such principle? Nobody. Some of the novel writers have noticed it, but they did not claim authority from heaven; they merely wrote their own opinions and followed the promptings of their own instincts, which led them to hope that such a thing might be the case; but there was no certainty about it. Our position was just as Joseph said: if we could not receive the Gospel which is an everlasting Gospel; if we could not receive the dictum of a Priesthood that administers in time and eternity; if we could not receive a principle that would save us in the eternal world, and our wives and children with us, we were not fit to hold this kingdom, and could not hold it, for it would be taken from us and given to others. This is reasonable proper, consistent, and recommends itself to the minds of all intelligence when it is reflected upon in the light of truth. Then, what did this principle open up to our view? That our wives, who have been associated with us in time—who had borne with us the heat and burden of the day, who had shared in our afflictions, trials, troubles, and difficulties, that they could reign with us in the eternal kingdoms of God, and that they should be sealed to us not only for time, but for all eternity. This unfolded to us the eternal fitness and relationship of things as they exist on the earth, of man to man, and of husband to wife; it unfolds the relationship they should occupy in time to each other, and the relationship that will continue to exist in eternity. Hence it is emphatically a religious subject so deep, sacred, and profound, so extensive and far-reaching, that it is one of the greatest principles that was ever revealed to man. Did we know anything about it before? No. How did we get a knowledge of it? By revelation. And shall we treat lightly these things? No. The Lord says that his servants may take to themselves more wives than one. Who gives to them one wife? The Lord. And has he not a right to give to them another, and another, and another? I think he has that right. Who has a right to dispute it, and prohibit a union of that kind, if God shall ordain it? Has not God as much right to-day to give to me, or you, or any other person two, three, four, five, ten, or twenty wives, as he had anciently to give them to Abraham, Isaac, David, Solomon, etc.? Has not the Lord a right to do what he pleases in this matter, and in all other matters, without the dictation of man? I think He has. Every principle associated with the Gospel which we have received is eternal, hence our marriage covenant is an eternal covenant given unto us of God. Then, when poor, miserable, corrupt men would endeavor to trample us under their feet because of the principles of truth which we have received from God, shall we falter in the least? No, never. Its opposers may croak against it until they go down to the dust of death; God will defend his work which he has introduced in the latter days; and, the Lord being our helper, we will help him to sustain it
John Taylor
Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April. 7, 1866
“Should the scripture be changed, or should we stop speaking out so harshly against polygamy?”
Neither. Polygamy is evil, Celestial plural marriage is holy and sacred.
Polygamy is doctrine and it’s doctrinal and it’s a law, called Sarah’s law. It’s currently approved in D&C 132.
However, Polygamy is a sin is also doctrine, or at least it was for 40 years. It’s just that this doctrine was removed from the doctrine and covenants by Brigham Young in the 1870s.
Section 101 in the D&C (don’t look, it’s not there anymore) for 40 years read:
“Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is as liberty to marry again.”
In 1935 it was adopted by common consent at a conference of the church (presided over by Joseph Smith) as doctrine and added to the doctrine and covenants, where it stayed, unchallenged as doctrine for 40 years.
See: http://www.centerplace.org/library/study/dc/ldc-marr.htm
So, really, it would be OK for the church to go back to the original doctrine, say that God never changes, polygamy isn’t an eternal law, just a temporary aberration.
It will happen someday, in my opinion. It may happen very soon. The church as a whole is opposed to it. And the original doctrine is that polygamy is a sin. And the doctrine was only changed in the 1870s when BY and other leaders were under fire from the gov’t for the practice . .. so they “doctrinalized” it . . .maybe in an attempt to say the gov’t couldn’t encroach on it because they were bound to practice it b/c it was church doctrine.
I don’t know why it’s played out this way.
But the first doctrine was that polygamy is an evil.
It all makes sense if you accept that Mormonism, like all religions, is man-made. Joseph Smith did not receive a revelation from outside himself, but within himself, to begin the practice of plural marriage. His reasons do not have to be bad or unholy, but they were personal, and perhaps done for what he considered to be good reasons. At some point, the US culture turned against the Mormons, and made this very “holy” practice difficult or impossible…especially if Utah wanted statehood. There was another “revelation” then, to stop polygamy. Again, another man-made decision. Either it is ALL true, because it is from God. Or, you accept that Religion is from man/woman, and that the practice of religion is driven by scriptures (rules/”laws”) written and interpreted by human beings. If you start flip-flopping on polygamy, what is going to happen with black (men) in the priesthood?
We wouldn’t even be discussing polygamy as though it were so outlandish if it weren’t for the fact that men of power in Europe practiced infidelity instead of polygamy. The Chinese, the Thai, Muslims, Sikhs, American Indian tribes, African tribes, and the Israelites all practice(d) polygamy. It’s really not a very interesting topic. In fact, obsessing over polygamy as though it were an inherently creepy idea is the most Eurocentric position I can imagine. I believe better than 70% of cultures practiced some form of polygamy prior to European expansion.
Also, quit obsessing over the Church’s older policies toward people of African descent. The choice to exclude them postdates the Church’s found, and keeping that segment of humanity out of the church allowed it to grow unfettered both at home and abroad.
In other words, the leaders of the Church probably don’t repudiate older doctrines that aren’t cool in moder America because they’re still valid. That doesn’t mean we practice them now. That doesn’t mean we’ll practice them later. It does mean that they weren’t a mistake.
This is an issue that has caused me personal turmoil and confusion, as it seems to for many others. I never gave it much thought until as an adult I was looking more deeply into church history for the first time, and started to learn more in-depth about Joseph and Emma Smith. The more I read and thought about early church practices, plural marriage and its application over time, and current church doctrines and beliefs, the more questions and fewer answers I found. I started to deeply struggle with my feelings and unanswered questions, and continued to read and search for a way to make sense of it all.
Although I could perhaps accept that there were some practical benefits to the church and to some women arising from the practice of plural marriage in the 19th C., it seems to me that all of these benefits are only broadly understood, and entirely connected to the unique and difficult historical era in which the early saints lived. (For example, some argue that it demanded and instilled a deep commitment to sacrifice in converts and the rising generation, it gave the church a unique cohesiveness and identity and set it apart from the world, it allowed women to share household responsibilities which widened their support network and gave greater freedom for education and other pursuits in an era when they had few individual rights, etc.). Perhaps I could accept that some of these were real in a general sense. But none of this eases my confusion over the individual pain and suffering that many women endured because of plural marriage (starting with Emma), or my aversion to the language used by early leaders which invariably downplayed women’s feelings, and implied that a women’s role is to submit to her husband’s preferences and decisions about marriage, and provide him with more glory, more posterity, and a greater exaltation that she gets to partake in by association. I also don’t understand the basic contradiction in how marriage, sex, equality, and fidelity are taught and understood in the church today verses how differently these concepts were applied during the era of plural marriage. A man’s commitment of real fidelity to his wife was never entire – he was always free to seek other attachments if he could provide adequately – and from all I can find it seems even content plural wives of necessity did not have a personal, intimate, and complete relationship with their husbands as we are taught to seek after today, but relied more on other women for support. It was a workable situation in which children could be cared for and the church could be developed, but it’s hardly a model for ideal marriage today. We are taught by current general authorities that for us, the marital bond is paramount above other associations, and that our commitment to our spouse must be total. My experience in marriage is vastly different from a 19th C. plural wife’s, being based on a loving, passionate, one-to-one, deeply intimate, profoundly personal commitment that is truly equal and total on both sides. This is the foundation of what my marriage is, the intention we both had when we committed to be married to each other, so the idea of my husband forming intimate relationships with other women feels like a betrayal to both of us, and to our relationship (just as would be the idea of me forming such relationships with other men).
So your question is one that I have struggled with too. Obviously early leaders thought this principle was one of the cornerstones of exaltation. That is no longer taught at all by general authorities, yet the doctrine has been neither refined or better explained. I’m not sure I can make sense of this either. The fact that there are men who are widowed and form a loving marriage with a second wife doesn’t really explain the current doctrine to me, because many women who are widowed do the exact same thing. I can only offer a few random thoughts, based on a very broad reading of the scriptures, and my own prayers and personal experiences (which may or may not be helpful to other people). First, I don’t find any doctrinal support for the idea that there will be more women exalted than men – I don’t necessarily think that is truth. Second, I have to believe that God respects the personal commitment my husband and I made to each other, and that it is not his intention to betray that sacred relationship or the way we experience it, especially as part of our eternal reward. Third, I don’t think the early church leaders’ interpretation of what celestial families will be like is necessarily the absolute picture of truth. Even their understanding of it changed over time. Yet they had to make sense of the difficult commandment they believed God required of them, so they naturally interpreted and justified it as an eternal, higher law. But I feel pretty certain that I do not have to picture their marital form as superior to mine, or our eternal reward as a place where everyone is in a Brigham Young-type family arrangement for eternity. Gordon B. Hinckley said this in the October 1991 conference: “Beyond the wonderful and descriptive words found in sections 76 and 137 we know relatively little concerning the celestial kingdom and those who will be there. At least some of the rules of eligibility for acceptance into that kingdom are clearly set forth, but other than that, we are given little understanding.” Sometimes I feel like our current doctrine is only a collection of fragments from the past. Certainly it seems to be an incomplete picture, one that has not been clarified. I don’t know, then, how to interpret our doctrine exactly, but the more I have worked over this issue for myself, the less I feel bound to believe that the correct way to picture eternity is a realm full of plural marriages.
I do love the reply and comment by William Clayton – “Neither. Polygamy is evil, Celestial plural marriage is holy and sacred.”.
It is such a difficulty to live upon this world while knowing the higher law to be true. It is such a difficulty to see the lack of understanding for it, while here on earth. It is such a difficulty to forcibly be held to abstinence, from living a higher law according to the God of our own understanding. When our heart yearns for the freedom to simply, truly live…
Polygamy has been made evil by an evil world. What I see are single mothers who struggle every day. Abandoned women who have learned to no longer trust, and then close off from love. Relationships broken by monogamous infidelity and revolving monogamous unkept promises. People broken. Lives broken. Sisterhood destroyed through monogamous jealousy. The opportunity to love and be loved by another, destroyed.
You who believe that polygamy is a bad thing may have your believes. You always have, as a matter of fact (with the exception of a very short time period in the U.S.). Yet you have bound the most loving to a life of despair. For a higher law lives within in our hearts and will never die. We are left incomplete every single day. Incomplete from not having another sweet voice within the home. Not having another sister’s helping hands, whose desire, joy and how she shows love is to be of such helpful nature. Incomplete from not having my sister who is my best friend, and a woman I would love to share with my husband because I love them both so much that I would give the world to them if I could. Their happiness builds more upon my own happiness… Heart broken that I have to live in this world…
Polygamy is not evil. This world is.
LOVE ALWAYS
John,
I feel that plural marriage is an eternal principal (at least in the Celestial Kingdom). Personally, I feel it is misleading for PR to say that it is not doctrinal when it was taught as an eternal principal and remains in section 132 of the D&C. It is understandable that the LDS Church wants to distance itself from any connections with polygamous, but it is just becoming more and more dishonest. I hold to the Helen Whitney philosophy of the public will think we are weird for our beliefs, but it is better to own those beliefs and not be dishonest about them. If I was interviewed about it I would say, “Plural marriage is doctrinal in the Church. However, Church law does not allow nor endorse the practice of polygamy at this time in order to comply with civil law.”
hello folks.. my husband dr. kittywaymo is a descendant through polygamy, of Joseph Smith (lucy walker smith kimball and catherine walker smith , 2 sisters sealed to the Prophet, then after his death “aunt lucy” married heber c. kimball for “time” only) i am VERY proud of my husband’s polygamous background.. he sure genetically turned out PERFECT if i do say so myself:) he is a kind, compassionate, patient, respectful husband and great surgeon and doctor.. anyway, my Jewish ancestry (my mom and dad are both Jewish, mom hellenistic jew (greece) dad italian (southern italy a lot of jews migrated there). anyway, my ancestry Avram etc practiced polygamy too.. I don’t have a problem with the doctrine, I am a highly educated retired newscaster.. i’m glad were not practicing it, but if the Prophet said we were going to again, I would obey the Lord and do His will through His servant the Prophet. This may sound funny to some of you, not to me.I have absolutely no doubts that the Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints is the Lord Jesus Christ Kingdom and Church upon the earth. So are the doctrines, G-d Bless and Shalom
During my trip to Thailand a few years back I saw a group of people north of Chaing Mai who were called “the hill people” and the “Karen” tribe. One of the interesting features was that they would wrap bands of brass around their necks and elongate their necks. At first it was interesting to see these women with necks that looked like beer bottles (they call them long necks) and as I wandered through the village I noticed young girls who had bands of brass around their necks and it occurred to me that they were already creating the next generation of freakshow participants with these 10 – 12 year old children who of course had no choice but to be exploited. Because of that revelation it occurred to me what was happening and I felt bad for these poor kids.
A ll of us look at the FLDS faith with some concern as we learn of the men who have dozens of wives and hundreds of children (Winston Blackmore of Creston, BC, Canada) and who rape the welfare system to support their guargantuan families. I’m quite clear that this is the kind of polygamy Joseph Smith and the early Church leaders taught up until 1904 when the Church under pressure decided it was in their best interests to quit. The practice started in the 1830′s and didn’t end until 1904. It wasn’t until around 1927 that the main body of the Church split from the polygamous families.
The scripture is clearly in the 132nd section of the D&C. I think a problem is the Church can’t touch any of these old “scriptures” because that would lead to the idea that perhaps the early “prophets” were not inspired after all.
Current Church looks nothing much like the Church Joseph Smith started. All of the current manuals give the impression that earlier Church leaders were monogamous and had dutiful, loving wives which could not be further from the truth.
I disagree that early Mormon polygamy was and/or is comparable to those who practice it today while exploiting the welfare system. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had nothing to do with preaching that sort of practice.
This has been a big doctorinal issue for me. I have read all of the Old Testament examples of polygamy. However, none in the New Testatment and no positive examples in the Book of Mormon. If it was an appropriate God given revelation why did it start in secret and end in secret….start with lies and end with lies? I still have no answers, but for some reason I will see you in Sunday School this Sunday. Go figure.