I’m skipping the background on this one.* I’m just jumping right in.
Polygamy wasn’t about a surplus of women on the frontier. It wasn’t just a church “policy” (i.e. now we practice it, now we don’t). It was so much more than that.
Polygamy was about stewardship. It was about spiritual progression. It was God’s way of providing a way for those faithful in a few things to be put in charge of many things. It was an outward sign of spiritual growth and the assumption of greater responsibility. It was a mark of divine trust.
The more wives you had, the more righteous you were. The more wives you had, the more dedicated and capable you were perceived to be. There was a strong correlation between authority in the church and an individual’s enthusiasm for the practice. Those who practiced it were blessed with spiritual insight and physical vigor. Those who refused to practice it were damned in the sense that they ceased to progress spiritually.
Polygamy was what God wanted–and expected. Monogamy, on the other hand, was unnatural. According to Brigham Young and others, monogamy was an attempt by corrupt and wicked societies (primarily the Roman Empire) to truncate the spiritual progression of righteous men. Monogamy was the root cause of prostitution and other whoredoms (presumably because when the door to increasing levels of responsibility and stewardship are closed, men get a little restless). God is, of course, a polygamist. Not only do we have a mother in heaven, we have many.
The doctrine of polygamy is one thing.
Its practice is another.
Individuals that we revere as prophets, seers and revelators openly and confidently taught that polygamy was the true order of heaven for a good portion of the church’s history–and for decades after the practice was stopped in 1890. The doctrine of polygamy is still with us (see D&C 132, for example). It’s in our DNA. We just don’t know what to do with it.
Saying that the church doesn’t “practice” polygamy misses the point. The million dollar question (and the question no one wants to answer these days) is whether or not we still believe in the DOCTRINE of polygamy. Responses like this are laughably inadequate. We don’t practice polygamy because the U.S. government made us stop (and it’s been illegal ever since). Asking if we BELIEVE in it is an entirely different question.
So here’s the problem.
Step back for a minute and look past the implementation problems (i.e. the weirdness of it, the jealousies, etc.). Look at the doctrine itself. Polygamy is a system in which MEN “progress” and “expand their stewardship” by increasing their patriarchal reach. They do it by collecting women like Jay Leno collects classic cars. I have no doubt many of the men treated their wives as well as, or even better, than Jay treats his collectibles, but that’s not the point. The point is that men increased their standing and their stature by collecting women. It is a practice that is fundamentally, and to its very core, inescapably sexist. If you believe in equality–and in a God that loves all his children equally–it is an ugly and repugnant practice (regardless of how flawlessly implemented).
So what can the church do? Here are some options.
1) Boldly preach the doctrine of polygamy regardless of the consequences–and wait for the time when God re-institutes the practice. After all, this is the end of times, and the doctrine of polygamy is one of the plain and precious truths given to us as part of the restoration of all things (according to numerous latter-day prophets). Of course, pursuing this course of action will isolate the church and make growth impossible.
2) Maintain our belief in the doctrine of polygamy, but keep it under our hats. After all, milk before meat, right? The problem is that we’ve buried it so deep that a significant percentage of the church membership doesn’t believe it anymore (or isn’t even aware of it). How does that fit in with our mission to preach revealed truth to the world? How are people supposed to recognize truth if we don’t preach it (even to ourselves)?
3) Discard the doctrine. This would require an admission of sorts that numerous prophets were wrong about the nature of heaven, the nature of God, and about fundamental societal institutions, like marriage. If prophets can be mistaken about such fundamental issues for such an extended period of time, then what does that say about the nature of revelation?
4) Pretend the doctrine of polygamy doesn’t exist. Talk only about the practice–and about how the practice ceased in 1890. Strip all mention of both the doctrine and practice of polygamy from all official lesson manuals and other church publications. When it absolutely has to be mentioned, focus only on the practice, not the associated doctrine. Pretend there is no polygamy problem (and hope it goes away).
Tough choice, right? No, not really. Option #4 it is.
*If you’re curious and don’t know where to start, here are a few links: Mormonism and Polygamy (Wikipedia), http://mormon polygamy.org/, and http://mormonthink.com/QUOTES/polygamy.htm.
[Last Post: 17 True or False?]
Polygamy was nothing more than Joseph Smith’s attempt to cover up his adulterous relationships. God abhors adultery, yet according to Smith, taking the wives of married men was just a-okay. LDS polygamy was all about satisfying the lust of the leaders.
God intended from the beginning that there would be one man and one woman per marriage, as I demonstrated in my article here: http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2009/07/gods-view-of-polygamy.html
I find it interesting that throughout the Book of Mormon God condemns polygamy, yet suddenly when Joseph is having adulterous relationships God changes his mind. What a fickle god you have!
Thank you for this. I’ve had members tell me that it is a non-issue for the church as it’s all in the past and only those who want to participate in the next life will be called to do so. In my mind, however, I don’t want to be a part of a society where the top tier are polygamists, which definitely sends a very sexist message to the rest of the group. I think there are a lot of misunderstandings amongst the current generation of members. We need to be educated better as to the history of the doctrine.
I really like how you put this out there real quick & matter of fact. My problem is that now I want to share it. That’s how I process information. Sure I could discuss it with fringe mormons or exmo’s but that would be a one sided discussion. I need to talk to this with the people who don’t want to. Is it worth it?
There are some who could have a good discussion with you… but only you can answer the question, “Is it worth it?”
The polygamy situation gets even more sticky when you have a general authority tell your ancestor that he will never be able to pay off his debts until he takes another wife… and that being ten years after the manifesto. Thats not a rosy promise, thats coercion.
Then the other problem is that a complete repudiation of polygamy becomes difficult in light of all the Old Testament prophets who were big on ‘the principle’. Perhaps the fifth way of looking at the situation is to admit the existence of polygamy both in ancient times, and during the restoration, but suggest that it is a principle that is optional only to prophets, (and that it got out of hand.)
It is so strange to me, that just a few years ago I would have defended the doctrine, and thus the eventual practice, of polygamy. I knew I was going to have to accept it. A friend of mine (we’ve both since left the church) likes to remind me that I once told him that, “Any woman who says she will never accept polygamy does not understand that plan of salvation, or the doctrine of the church. She is selfish and short-sighted.”
I have changed. I like the way you put it… It is an incredibly sexist way of thinking. Men progress by acquiring women. There’s no other way to define the practice of polygamy (in the church. I actually have no problem if consenting adults decide to practice polygamy… it’s the “God says” part that I have a problem with.)
Jen, you make a good point. A gender-neutral approach among consenting adults would be different–it’s the “men progress” by acquiring women variety that is fundamentally sexist. Unfortunately, the latter version is the one that is doctrinally supported.
There was a thread somewhere in the past couple days that quoted, I think Willford Woodruff, about how polygamy was a cure for lust. Does anyone remember seeing that?
Good points, Brent. We definitely stick with 4. I like how you separated belief from practice, but I know some who say 132 is NOT about polygamy but eternal marriage. I know… I don’t see it either. And why did Joseph come up with 132 when he needed to gain support for polygamy?
The practice of polygamy and polyandry is a cruel, abusive, and horrific practice and very much opposed in both the New Testament and Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith clearly was a pedophile and forced himself upon trusting young women and married women who believed that, as a prophet, he could do no wrong. I believe the Church must eventually eliminate that practice from its theological base. People are able to access information easily on the Internet that was once kept hidden in the Church historical archives. There is no way that the Church can defend the practice in a spirit of integrity and honesty.
Chris – pedophilia is when adults prefer sex with pre-pubescent children. Hebephilia is when they prefer ages 12-14 (pubescent). Ephebophilia is adults preferring teenage sexual partners, ages 14-19 (mid to late adolescent). There is a different motivation also, as ephebophiles often have sexual performance anxiety when partnered with their same age peers.
Great OP. I agree the church has chosen #4, but I wish they would go back and do #3 instead. However, given that #4 has been the approach for a couple decades, the good news is that #2 is becoming more and more true. Nobody is defending this practice. I would bet that a poll of members would show less than 30% think it had divine origin, and they probably have ancestors who practiced it.
Angela, agreed. In fact I would say that I grew up with a #2 approach and wish that we would go with #3.
THIS. Very well said.
I would like to cast my vote for #3, please. Oh, wait, I don’t get to vote on this.
I can see how discarding the doctrine would create innumerable problems for the church, but I would hope that a reversal on that doctrine would actually keep more people interested in staying. What is so terrible about an apology, an acknowledgement of wrong doing? Joseph Smith called himself a “rough stone,” right? Maybe seeing this glaring error in his leadership (as a church) will simply help us see his human weakness a little more clearly. We’ve almost idolized Joseph Smith in the church for so many years, but he wasn’t a god or angel. He was flawed, horribly flawed.
But it wasn’t *just* Joseph Smith, right? We’d have to discard the words/teachings of multiple prophets.
I kinda don’t think it would be an issue, either. Hey–we have latter-day revelation. I seriously think Thomas S. Monson could get up in general conference and pretty much say, “Look. We don’t know what that was about, but I’ve had new revelation that JS, BY, etc. misunderstood and/or were wrong. We’re not doing that anymore, in any form or fashion. God will work everything out.”
And that would be that.
Too optimistic?
Dayna, this was great: “I would like to cast my vote for #3, please. Oh, wait, I don’t get to vote on this.”
The LDS believes Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and as a prophet of God he came up with the polygamy doctrine which he claimed came from God. If you eliminate that doctrine because it is distasteful, then how can you justify any other doctrine from Smith? Either he spoke from God or he didn’t. I can demonstrate that he had over 40 false prophecies, which makes him a false prophet, which means the entire LDS faith is a fraud to begin with. And yet you quibble over polygamy!
As you might suspect, I don’t agree with this “all-or-nothing” line of reasoning. I see no problem with JS being inspired one day and then completely off his gourd the next. In fact, that seems much more likely than either absolute. I think the false dichotomies we often back ourselves into are generally unproductive. . . The assertion that JS was either an infallible prophet or an complete fraud ignores enough middle ground to build several good-sized housing developments. It’s like the C.S. Lewis trilemma (Lunatic, Liar, Lord, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis's_trilemma) and it really isn’t that useful.
I don’t know if my teachers just all happened to avoid the topic when I was growing up or if I just wasn’t paying attention, but I didn’t know until college about the afterlife part of this doctrine. I knew as a teenager that I would never, ever practice it myself, and as an adult I’m only more convinced that there is nothing divine about polygamy. I’m with Jen on not caring if consenting adults want to practice–although I will never be able to understand why or how they would want to–but as a mandate from God? Nope. Not the God I believe in.
My god neither, Miri.
Brent, you disagree with the “all or nothing” approach to being a prophet, but Biblical prophets had that standard. The LDS church was a fraud from its foundation. I am ex-LDS and have studied the history and doctrines of the LDS for over 35 years since leaving the LDS church. There is nothing true about the foundation of the church, there is nothing true about the doctrines of the church. Smith was a necromancer from the beginning, made up the BOM out of his mind with plagiarism from the KJV and most likely a couple other books, never had a prophecy which came true, developed a completely different god from the God of the Bible, a different Christ from the Christ of the Bible, and a whole different Gospel.
And yet you focus on the polygamy issue!! If D&C 132 isn’t from God, then nothing else LDS is either.
Glenn, we obviously aren’t going to agree on this. With that said, this assertion strikes me as particularly ridiculous and indefensible:
“If D&C 132 isn’t from God, then nothing else LDS is either.”
So an individual can’t be inspired as one point in time, and then 10 years later write or say something that isn’t inspired?
No, a true prophet of God doesn’t come up with prophecies ten years later (of course none of his previous ones came to pass either) claiming they are from God when they are not. If you say Smith was a prophet of God, then you can’t pick and choose which prophecies and doctrines came from God and which didn’t if HE says they came from God.
It is plenty defensible by Scripture.
So nothing good can come from anyone who doesn’t speak directly to God? If someone speaks directly to God, then they can do no wrong? So either every word of the Bible is “true” or it’s all–every last word–a colossal fraud? Sigh.
I hope the black-and-white thing works out for you. . . Best of luck.
There is no error in the original manuscripts of the Bible, contrary to the lies spread by the LDS who never even study textual criticism.
Biblically speaking, there is no such thing as a prophet who gives a false prophecy. If a prophet EVER gives a false prophecy, he is not a prophet of God. So if you say D&C 132 was not from God, even though Smith claimed it as such, then you are saying Smith was a false prophet. And since the whole LDS faith is based on whether he was a true prophet of God, then if Smith is a false prophet (and I have proven he is on my blog), then the LDS is a house of cards falling.
Like I said, we’re not going to agree on this, particularly if it is your position that God condoned genocide, polygamy, the public stoning of disobedient children, incest, rape, etc (as the Old Testament suggests). It’s interesting to me that you seem willing accept, for example, that God wanted a victorious army to systematically kill surviving women and children (that’s okay, because it’s in the Bible), but are not willing to accept that anything JS said or did could in any way be inspired. Like I said, good luck with your black-and-white view of world. . . I hope it works out for you.
Well, it looks like you’ve been surfing the atheist and skeptic blogs. You obviously don’t understand Scripture with your charges. These claims have been responded to by solid theologians for centuries. First, God never condoned polygamy any more than he condoned divorce. He permitted it because of the hardness of man’s heart. As for your claims of genocide, etc, try this article for a wee bit of understanding:
http://birdsoftheair.blogspot.com/2011/09/midianite-assault.html
There was never stoning of disobedient “children” – they were adults. And it wasn’t “disobedient” – it was for more than that. Israel was to take sin seriously because Israel was being set apart as the chosen people of God. I’d like you to show me where God condoned rape. “Incest” is a modern problem. With Adam & Eve, their children being the only people on earth had to marry brothers and sisters. Marriage of close relatives is not problematic except that since the fall genetic defects have crept in. God put a stop to close marriages during the time the Law was given to Israel.
Yet you are willing to accept a religion made by a man who worked with the occult, who never got a prophecy correct, who invented polygamy to cover his adultery, ruined people’s finances with his banking fraud, had people killed for not wanting to go along with his schemes, started a war with Missourians and then whined about being a victim, had a business destroyed for printing the truth about his schemes, etc. Joseph Smith was a very corrupt person and yet you willingly follow his teachings for which there is no historical or archaeological evidence for.
And yes, life is black and white. God gives no gray areas when it comes to his doctrine and commands.
Glenn:
Deuteronomy 21: 18-21, “18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.”
The Old Testament is riddled with polygamy–and there are numerous passages where God clearly commands it. As for the stoning of children, please see the passage I’ve quoted above. I have no doubt that Biblical apologists have addressed the issue of genocide, etc. (and I’m happy you have all this worked out in your head).
My point is that if you start out with the assumption that ALL of the Bible is “true” and then work backwards to justify it, you’ll be able to do it (but the process is exactly the same as the process devout Mormons employ to justify their faith). Mormon apologist can easily explain away your “issues” in the same way that you–and other Biblical apologists–are able to “explain” the stoning of children, polygamy, God-sanctioned genocide, incest, rape, talking donkeys, a three-day campout inside a whale, magic, etc. I think it’s interesting that you insist on applying a black-and-white standard to Mormonism that you refuse to apply to other aspects of Christianity. I don’t subscribe to the kind of black-and-white thinking (or the false-dichotomies that this kind of thinking creates), so I’m not in either camp. But to each his own. . .
The individual is an adult child, which changes the situation from the idea that it is a child. Nevertheless, the important thing to note is that God takes sin seriously. One of the 10 Commandments is to honor father and mother. Failure to do so is sin. The punishment for sin is death.
The Bible is indeed true. The only way you can believe Mormonism is to start by denying the truth of the Bible. Then you have to deny common sense and rational, objective analysis of the LDS origins. You want to misrepresent what Scripture says rather than trying to understand it – just like atheists do.
But again, you are willing to fulling defend the LDS faith which has no foundation other than one man’s claim. I’d rather not put my eternal destiny in the claims of one man, especially one who has been proven to be of a corrupt character.
“Nevertheless, the important thing to note is that God takes sin seriously. One of the 10 Commandments is to honor father and mother. Failure to do so is sin. The punishment for sin is death.” Try that excuse out in a court of law!
“My daughter wouldn’t do what I say, your honor, and so I was forced to kill her.” is not a defense that will get you acquitted.
I’m trying to decide what I’m more disturbed by–an “adult” being stoned to death for not obeying his/her parent, or a child being stoned to death for the same reason. . . tough call. But if the idea that an adult can be stoned for disobeying a parent makes you feel better, by all means feel free to interpret it that way.
I vote for number 5. An understanding that human contexts change with time and that any prophecy in one time needs to be understood in its historical context and then interpreted to meet the needs of another generation. I think that reading any spiritual text literally, particularly a historical spiritual text is not understanding how human cultures and languages develop and change over time. On that note I will recommend, the book “My year of living Biblically(sp)” It is hilarious. One man’s attempt to follow the Bible literally (minus the stoning, rape and wife beating that Brent mentioned).
What you also fail to take into consideration is that only in Israel were those laws allowed – only Israel was given those commands so as to purify that nation as a holy people for God’s use to tell the rest of the world who God is. Remember, these were not “children” except in the fact that they were offspring. The passage says he is a “profligate and a drunkard.” A totally rebellious person was not to be part of God’s holy people.
It took me a minute to figure out if this post was sarcastic or serious. Personally, I don’t think it is a doctrine. I believe it was a practice, started by one or two men, perpetuated by the other leaders who were “following the prophet” and had the belief that prophets were/are infallible. Obviously not everything a prophet says is doctrine, gospel, or even true at all. Brigham Young himself said that black men would never receive the priesthood, and we all know how that stands now.
D&C 64:
38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.
39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.
Why would that be necessary if all the leaders were always right about everything? I think the membership of the Church as a whole value following leaders far too much and following their inner impressions far too little.
D&C 132 is a doctrine. Polygamy was a doctrine taught by the number one prophet, Joseph Smith Jr. You cannot deny that.