Mainstream Mormons DO Believe in Polygamy
Regular “Trapped” visitor Kris, who just happens to be a Mormon, has my upmost respect. Although we didn’t really start out on the best of terms, I believe we have grown to appreciate each other and our right to “disagree.”
She wrote something on my blog comments this morning, and I feel like I want to address it to make MY position clear.
Kris said:
If I had any reason, even slight, to belive that the LDS Church of which I am a member was in any way condoning polygamy but then turning around and saying it doesn’t, I would be out of here so quick. So far, I can’t buy into that conspiracy theory.
The LDS Church STILL teaches polygamy as a tenet. It is NOT, however, practiced today because of the LAWS against it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a tenet, which of course means IT IS CONDONED. They practice it every day, in Mormon Temples all over the world.
Is it not hypocritical to criticize those practicing POLYGAMY when in fact, many of them (church hierarchy) are practicing SPIRITUAL POLYGAMY even today?
Dallin Oaks remarried and was sealed to his second wife. The sealing to his FIRST wife, who passed away, WAS NOT CANCELLED. He is a spiritual polygamist, and because of the Mormon belief that marriage is eternal, and going BY that belief, he will live in the Celestial Kingdom WITH HIS TWO WIVES as a POLYGAMIST.
That, Kris, is polygamy.
Now, do they condone polygamy practiced TODAY? No. But the roots are still there. They still BELIEVE in it. The only reason it is NOT practiced is because it is illegal. And the reason that the FLDS group and other polygamist groups have flourished for SO MANY YEARS is because authorities in Utah have been loathe to criminalize their behavior, realizing that their OWN ROOTS come down from polygamy. Our former Governor Mike Leavitt had grandparents that practiced polygamy. That wouldn’t make him real excited to come down hard on other polygamists, realizing it wasn’t that far removed from his OWN family.
It is PART of the LDS heritage. Up until the 1940s, polygamy was still practiced by some sitting on the highest benches in the LDS hierarchy. And that means it was condoned.
As for today, I believe the ONLY form of polygamy CONDONED by the LDS hierarchy is spiritual polygamy, which they practice on a regular basis. But it is an ESSENTIAL tenet of Mormonism, which means that you HAVE to connect the two. If you want to consider WHO is living the “TRUE CHURCH,” the one taught by Joseph Smith, Warren Jeffs is actually living it much closer than mainstream Mormons. Joseph Smith taught polygamy as the new and everlasting covenant. EVERLASTING. Strong word. Means it LASTS FOREVER.
Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132, deals specifically with polygamy, and it’s hard to refute, no matter HOW hard you try.
Here, in particular, is the section where God rebuked Emma Smith because she did not like Joseph Smith’s polygamous choices.
51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, 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.
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an hundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds.
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice.
57 And again, I say, let not my servant Joseph put his property out of his hands, lest an enemy come and destroy him; for Satan seeketh to destroy; for I am the Lord thy God, and he is my servant; and behold, and lo, I am with him, as I was with Abraham, thy father, even unto his exaltation and glory.
Pretty black and white. If you know Church history, you know all this. At which time, I would have to say your point is that that Jeffs is practicing a more vile, disgusting form of polygamy, and I agree. Even Jeffs father did not conduct himself in such an evil manner, and the FLDS Church really took a nasty turn when Jeffs took power. And yet if you compared him to Joseph Smith, I think you would be surprised to find how MUCH they have in common.
Or, even, how much he has in common with Brigham Young.
For example, one of the things currently being used to VILIFY Warren Jeffs is a quote of him making racist statements. A segment of those include this:
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, or rude and filthy, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits; wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is usually bestowed upon mankind.”
Nasty words. But, see, Jeffs is not coming up with this on his own. He is QUOTING Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses. No one bothers to MENTION THAT! It’s time someone did.
Kris, the LDS church teaches polygamy as a tenet and a belief essential to eternal salvation. They DO condone it. You can’t deny that.
Should I get your exit papers ready?
August 30th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Something that jumps right out to me in this argument and backs your argument is this, if you are a faithful Mormon wife and you die you can only get into the “Celestrial Kingdom” by being eternally sealed to your husband. If he gets remarried it is spiritual polygamy.
BUT, if a man were to unseal his dead wife(ves) at remarriage, to seal his second, or third, or fourth wife what would the LDS membership think at that point? She had given her oath, vows, and commitment through life to only be cut lose at death? Now we don’t expect to die before our spouse, but it happens every minute. So why hasn’t anyone seen this argument.
I don’t think I made that quite clear. But basically I am boggled that women don’t see this. What if you are a good up standing spinster and you pass away? You can only get into the “celestrial kingdom” by marriage? You’ve not been sealed, you don’t have a secret name, you have a diministed standing in the eyes of the LDS church, and yet women swallow this hook, line, and sinker.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Cele, we were always taught that women who were not given the chance to marry in THIS life, would be given the opportunity in the next one. WHAT an opportunity! To be one of many sisterwives to your husband, who was his own GOD.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Just how do I start one of these off-shoot polygamist groups? Heck-a-doodle, may as well start here.
If you are interested in becoming one of my many wives please let me know. A good paying job, blind obedience and being bi-pedal being the only qualifications. Oh yeah, you have to be very cute, fit and estranged from all your family members. And own your own car . . . and have great credit . . . and never nag . . . and love football . . . and know how to caddie . . . and
August 30th, 2006 at 10:41 am
Bipedal? Does that mean sex with bikes? I’m really against that…..
August 30th, 2006 at 10:56 am
If a women remarries after the death of her husband, does she have to “unseal” from her dead husband in order to remarry?
August 30th, 2006 at 11:01 am
LOL. Bipedal! Always the editor.
Don’t knock it. Sex on a bike is great . . . risky but great! Probably more fun with a partner. See, that’s the whole karma thing, right there. This is why I was in Laughlin!
Inthenameoftheosmondsamen,
Howy
August 30th, 2006 at 11:02 am
For some reason that reminded me of the Indian woman who married a cobra…
As far as the official statements by the Mormon church denying any connection to the FLDS, and whether or not they are justified… Well, that reminded me of many extremist so-called Christian sects. Like Fred Phelps and his hateful Westboro Baptist Church [spiffy *coughnotcough* website, huh? http://www.godhatesfags.com/ ] *That* piss-poor excuse for a human being styles himself a Christian. In fact, if you go by his words, only those who follow *his* version of Christianity have half a chance of not burning in hell. Gee, if I were a Baptist, I would tell to all and sundry that Fred Phelps and his followers are anything but Baptists.
Anyone who claims to believe in what the Bible says can call him/herself a Christian, regardless of whether their version of it jives with mine or that of any other Christian. In that same vein, anyone who claims to believe in the Book of Mormon, or the Torah or the Koran [sp?] can call him/herself a Mormon or a Jew or a Muslim. Doesn’t make him/her one, though, and IMO the official representatives of such religions would be right to make clear to the uninformed that no, Jeff Warren is not a Mormon to the Mormon Church, and no, Fred Phelps is not a Baptist to the Baptist Church.
Two Mexican cents, for all it’s worth.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Summer, the answer to that is I’m not sure. It used to be that way. Men could seal their little selves away to high heaven, but women only got one sealing. They could marry civilly, but not be sealed to another man. I’m not sure what the stance on that is now. I’ll go research it.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Azteclady, my sister is a Baptist. She doesn’t really spend any time being offended by the fact that Phelps calls himself a Baptist.
Anyone who knows anything about Baptists doesn’t make the connection that the Phelps gang and Bible believing Baptist have a lot in common.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
From the LDS’s official church website”
“In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church’s position on plural marriage:
“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”
At various times, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1).
In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1). ”
Definitions of polygamy on the Web:
having more than one spouse at a time
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Definition of Spouse… from same site…
a person’s partner in marriage
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Definition of Marriage
the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); “a long and happy marriage”; “God bless this union”
two people who are married to each other; “his second marriage was happier than the first”; “a married couple without love”
the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; “their marriage was conducted in the chapel”
a close and intimate union; “the marriage of music and dance”; “a marriage of ideas”
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
so therefore by that these definitions the mormon church does not condone polygamy as in the US you have to be married to more than 1 person at the same time and that Marriages are disolved at death…
now Mormons do believe in marriage continues after death so that does lend weight to your arguement Natalie of “spiritual Poligamy” but legally the claim made by thier President is absolutely accurate, and therefore I think Kris’s claim is safe.
splitting hairs yes… but then accuracy seems to be important to you Natalie…. at least sometimes.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
It IS splitting hairs, Sierra. Basically, what you are saying is “the church only CONDONES polygamy, when it is dictated by “higher mandates?”
Because the BOTTOM line is POLYGAMY is a tenet taught in and believed BY the mainstream Mormon Church.
They do not, however, condone it TODAY, because it is illegal. I do believe that today’s Mormons are law-abiding citizens.
But I also know that POLYGAMY came from SOMEWHERE, and that SOMEWHERE is the teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
FYI, commenters, let’s keep this civil. So far it’s been great. I appreciate ALL the input, and the fact it’s staying on track for the discussion,and not devolving into silly flame wars.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Polygamy was not invented by Joseph Smith Jr… and the LDS church is big on “modern revalation” that means in the eyes of LDS people who actually pay attention in thier church meetings that the current statement by thier current prophet takes precident over anything a 200 year dead prophet said or taught.
just as a interesting sidelight , while no-one in the US really gives a damn as we are all tunnel visioned to the MSM/Hollywood/HBO spin on the world… polygamy is still a common and accepted practice in many Islamic, and tribal societies. Now I’m not saying it’s a good idea and we should legalize the practice here cause I don’t, but your fixation on an isolated deviation of a couple of wacko’s in a localized county in the US is really disproportional when compared to the global scale of the practice.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
oh and for the record… Warren Jeff’s deserves everything he gets in terms of jail time from the prosecutor…
my 2 cents.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
Sorry, Sierra, but that argument is from the “look over there” school of philosophy. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Drawing attention away from polygamy–and the Mormon roots of polygamy–and drawing it elsewhere doesn’t work.
I am focusing on what I see here, close at home.
Well aware, also, that Joseph did not invent polygamy. He just latched onto it with great fervor.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
On the Warren Jeffs issue, Sierra, we are in complete agreement. I hope authorities don’t back down.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Summer, I appreciate your sister’s fortitude.
Me, I am offended by a man/woman/group who preaches that Christianity equals “God hates (fill in your target here)”
Furthermore, I would like to make clear to those who may believe that, why, yes, indeed, “Christianity equals hatred,” that actually NO, the one thing Christ never preached was hatred.
That doesn’t mean I want these asshats censored–freedom of speech means they get to spew their hateful garbage, after all, and I get to spew my own beliefs–but there *are* people out there who may lump ALL Christians together, and hate ALL Christians because they themselves feel hated by ALL Christians–when it’s in fact only a small percentage of self-identified Christians who hate them.
One can substitute Christianity in the above paragraph with say, Islam, which would give us Christians an idea of why separating from the hateful fanatic few could be felt necessary to the peaceful decent majority.
Just saying.
Natalie, I know very little about Mormonism myself, so I didn’t quite understand the spiritual polygamy bit until just now–most other if not all other Christian religions do the ‘until death do us part,’ plus women go to heaven or not on their own merits.
August 30th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Oh and my apologies for keeping flipping Warren Jeffs’ name *sigh* No excuses there.
August 30th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
It is interesting that those who seem to criticise Mormons for polygamy the most don’t seem to look at other reliions and their attitude. For example, take the Roman Catholic Church - divorces are not recognised by the Pope/RC Church. So if a divorcee remaries, surely that is polygamy? Looks like we are going to have a lot of ex-communicants from the RC Chuch if that one’s omplemented!!
August 30th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Good try, Curious, but your comment doesn’t hold water. The PREMISE here is that Mormons DO believe that polygamy will be a tenet of eternal salvation in the Celestial Kingdom. This is a MORMON BELIEF. They believe polygamy to be true and everlasting, and even today, men are allowed to marry and be sealed to more than one woman in the LDS Temple, since polygamy is required for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom.
Roman Catholics do not share this belief. In fact, they believe there IS NO MARRIAGE in heaven. And if a divorce is not granted, the person is believed to be committing adultery. Therefore, polygamy discussions do not APPLY to them. You can’t put YOUR belief system on someone else’s belief system and expect it to hold water. We’re talking about Mormons here, not Catholics.
Your comment is just another case of the “look over there” theory of trying to debunk someone’s argument.
August 30th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Summer,
I believe that except in special cases, it remains true that while men can be sealed to more than one woman in the temple, for time and all eternity, the same is not the true of women. They must seek a temple divorce before they can be remarried in the temple.
August 30th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
I had this great rant going until the blog ate it. Frell!
Curious, you bring up an inaccurate argument. What is not known much outside of Catholicism is that you can get a Papal Annulment of a Catholic Marrage and merrily go on you marrying way with the blessings of Rome. That does not include civil ceremonies, or religious marriage ceremonies outside of a Catholic Church, because the Church does not recognize them.
Of general comment - not to Curious or anyone alone -
Now if I can remember my rant (which really wasn’t much of a rant.) Many say those who post here in dialogue are targeting only Mormons. Not so. I stand in stunned belief when Oral Roberts makes one of his inane proclaiments that he was ordered by God to raise $8 million dollars or i.e. 1) go blind 2) be struck dead, or 3) be struck impotent (okay that one didn’t happen. But if God really did command such wouldn’t he strike what a man holds most dear?)
The next time (and everytime before and after) Jerry Falwell spews his rabid campaign of ignorance, fear, corruption, and hatred I will stand in wonder that people listen and take him seriously. Revere him. And think that way in the so call free world.
The next time Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Jones (hmmmm a theme emerges) gets caught with their pants down, leading others to the kool-aid of their twisted Christianity I will rant in opposition. The scare the be-jebbers out of me because people listen and act.
The next time any church heirachy covers up abuse by the clery I will be in abhorance and angry.
darn I am missing part of my rant. I hate when that happens. But I want you to know the following about me, do assume I hate or dislike Mormons. I just don’t agree with mandates and doctrines of that Church. The individuals who are Mormons tend to be very nice people. I do not hate Baptist, although they tend to think I am very strange and not Christian. I do not hate Catholics. I do not prejudge people based on their faith, race, sex (okay that isn’t always true,) or nationality. Warren Jeffs I dislike for himself and his actions against others.
August 30th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
When we learned about polygamy in seminary, we were taught (by an employee of the church quoting church manuals) that it would be reinstated some day, when we were all righteous enough. This would appear to be condoning the practice to me.
August 30th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Natalie,
I appreciate that you felt my comments to be worthy of an entire post! Holy crap…I was flattered.
First of all, for this to be an intelligent argument/discussion ALL points of view must be considered a valid contribution to the conversation. This is fundamental aspect of a good debate. There has already been great banter about this topic from all different sides of the issue…I have been watching it all day. With all due respect, as I do have respect for you Natalie, you cannot wipe away someone else’s take on things just because you disagree with their point of view. A few people have said a number of things that you have responded to as a “look over there theory”. When adequately debating a topic, it IS a valid argument to use other examples from OUTSIDE the LDS church, to make a point whether you like it or not.
May I add that a few of you must have an amazing library of LDS books (!!) in order to be able to quote specific pages out of the Journal of Discourses. It must take a lot of time to track down specific quotes! Certainly you wouldn’t be using secondary sources to quote those, right? How do you know they are accurate? Sorry, I digress.
The issue here was Warren Jeffs and whether his “church” is in fact affiliated with the “mainstream” LDS church. It is not. Do I think the LDS church needs to lay off the whole “we aren’t’ affiliated” diatribe…absolutely. Most normal, responsible and intelligent people already know that. Let the others believe what they want to believe, they will whether we debate this to death or not.
“Kris, the LDS church teaches polygamy as a tenet and a belief essential to eternal salvation. They DO condone it. You can’t deny that.”
The church does NOT preach that you must be married to multiple wives to get into the Celestial Kingdom. Sorry it doesn’t. That seems to be a common thread in this topic that is absolutely incorrect. But then again, everyone will believe what they want to believe won’t they? The LDS church does state that you must (man and woman) be married in the temple. That is the new and everlasting covenant…temple marriage for time and eternity. The church teaches MARRIAGE FOR TIME AND ETERNITY, not polygamy as a tenant for salvation. “Families are forever”. I am married and was married in the temple. I will not be denied going to heaven because I do not have “sisterwives”! That is ridiculous.
I don’t know how to even start talking about the spiritual polygamy aspect of this discussion. As a matter of fact Natalie, I was the one that brought it up in jest in the comments of one of your recent postings. SO many people here seem to “understand” the LDS church so well, but don’t recognize the twisted versions of the church that they are entwined with. I feel that my opinions would be considered invalid the moment they were posted. I only know my experience. For me, I am going to worry about my life, today and tomorrow. And yes if a Bishop or Stake President came to me tomorrow and told me I had to marry another man and be a third/twentieth wife I might consider leaving the church…until then I am happy where I am.
Hope that makes sense.
K.
August 30th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
This debate is NOT about Roman Catholics. Therefore, it is NOT relevant to the discussion. It’s like considering the merits of tuna fish when the debate is about prime rib. I’ll consider all points of view that have relevant information about the TOPIC, which, as you yourself state, is Warren Jeffs and whether or not Mormons believe in polygamy. All a comment like that does is draw attention away from the core subject, and it is a common tactic of apologists.
As for as posting your comments, it was more about me opining on something that I think deserves comment, and not an attempt to embarass you. I would hope you would see the difference in the way I treat you as opposed to the idiots I hear from all the time.
And can I just admit that I am ABSOLUTELY floored that you wrote this. Just floored. And it’s why I have such a big issue with the LDS Church. You are very wrong, Kris.
You wrote:
“The church does NOT preach that you must be married to multiple wives to get into the Celestial Kingdom. Sorry it doesn’t. That seems to be a common thread in this topic that is absolutely incorrect. But then again, everyone will believe what they want to believe won’t they? The LDS church does state that you must (man and woman) be married in the temple. That is the new and everlasting covenant…temple marriage for time and eternity. The church teaches MARRIAGE FOR TIME AND ETERNITY, not polygamy as a tenant for salvation. “Families are forever”. I am married and was married in the temple. I will not be denied going to heaven because I do not have “sisterwives”! That is ridiculous.”
Doctrine & Covenants: Section 132. (And yes, I am QUOTING from the book I have at my house. )
21: Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.
Further down:
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood-if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, 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.
62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
And all of this aside, Kris, you asked for evidence the church condones polygamy. There it is RIGHT there, and in fact, REQUIRES it for passage into the Celestial Kingdom, YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT THERE. Get your D&C out and check. TELL me if I have misquoted.
Please remember that the manifesto of 1890 did not do away with polygamy. It simply stated that they would no longer perform polygamous marriages and the practice would be discontinued.
It IS stated as a law for the afterlife. But it is STILL taught, and it is still believed.
August 30th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
Here are more confirmations that polygamy is REQUIRED to attain the highest of God’s kingdoms.
“We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man’s highest exaltation in the life to come.” (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 1, page 18)
Brigham Young made this uncompromising statement on August 19, 1866: “The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, page 269).
John Taylor, the third president of the church, claimed that he believed in keeping all the laws of the United States “except one” — i.e., “The law in relation to polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, page 317)
Thomas G. Alexander, of Brigham Young University, admitted that “long after the 1879 Reynolds decision, Church members brought to bar for sentencing told federal judges that the law of God was higher than the law of the land and deserved prior obedience. The Manifesto officially ending polygamy as Church practice was not issued until 1890, and excommunication for practicing plural marriage did not come until 1904.” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1966, page 128)
The Mormons continued to openly preach polygamy until the year 1890. During this period the leaders taught that it was going to be a permanent part of the church and that it would never be stopped. Heber C. Kimball, First Counselor to Brigham Young, emphasized that the “principle of plurality of wives never will be done away,…” (Deseret News, Nov. 7, 1855)
“… the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.” - Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227
“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire….Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers…. Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practised it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ it is the only popular religion there,…” - Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862
“This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,…”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195
There are hundreds more, and the SOURCES are valid. Research them.
August 30th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
Kris,
Wow, you’re taking a whippin’ here. I only have one question. Have you told members of your church hierarchy that you post on this blog?
Howy
August 30th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
HOWY! Back. Kris is happily married…..
August 30th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
You are not seeing that verse as I see it Natalie. There lies the difference between you and me. We see things very differently in many ways.
NOT because I was taught to see it differently, but because in my own personal study BEFORE I joined I understood the precepts of this church. I know church history…I am not an uneducated sheep that blindly joined this church. That also sets me apart from a lot of other members of the church.
First of all that quote is superceded by the Manifesto by Wilford Woodruff and by the current president of the church as of 1998. As Sierra so eloquently put it, in past comments new revelation superceds old. Yes Mormoms believe that new revelation does. Secondly, in that verse if you want to specifically look at it, there is an “IF” in front of it….If a man…seems to me there is choice there. Choice is the key. I am well aware that Mormons practiced polygamy in the past, they don’t now…for your benefit…on the earth. So what is the problem?
K.
August 30th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
As for your second point, yep they said those things I have done my research. But they are superceded again by the Manifesto. Again what is the issue.
Howy, does it matter?
Natalie, what’s with the dig about me being married? Seems a little trite. What happened to keeping it civil?
K.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
The dig was aimed at me, Kris. Natalie knows me from way back and is aware that I’m just a rutting pig. A “crow” is how she described me, always after the shiny ones. Sigh . . . she’s right.
My question was asked to see if any of the church hierarchy had recommended that you cease engaging in this type of dialogue. From what I’ve read you don’t fit the mold. You are informed, strong willed and opinionated. All things that I’ve seen Mormon men shy away from in a spouse. So, naturally I was curious to see if your discussions ever leave this venue. Doubtful but you’ve surprised me so far.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
Kris, THERE is no revelation that supercedes it. There is nothing but a MANIFESTO. That is NOT a revelation. A MANIFESTO is not a revelation.
In fact, a manifesto is this:
man‧i‧fes‧to /ˌmænəˈfɛstoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[man-uh-fes-toh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -toes. a public declaration of intentions, opinions, objectives, or motives, as one issued by a government, sovereign, or organization.
It is not now , nor has it EVER been called a revelation. NOT BY YOUR CHURCH EVER. And you will have a HARD time refuting that.
And Kris? You took it wrong. I was messing with Howy, who is lonely, and sweet, and looking for love. I was trying to warn him off. It WAS A JOKE. There is no problem with you being married. Sorry you chose to take it off track. I should have expected this.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Nat, also knows that I really don’t give a hoot if they practice polygamy now or after death. That would be too deep for my frail, male psyche. Practice polygamy . . . it sounds like they’re trying to get it right.
August 30th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
LOL, Howy.
August 30th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
Kris, I’m very disappointed. And yet I must applaud your bravery. I never meant a dig at you, as far as marriage goes. I am married. It ain’t all that easy, but I applaud those who make it work.
Glad Howy knew where that was directed. He’s a long time friend, former lover, very talented artist, and someone I will never forget. I tease him. He teases me. Sad–you thought that was directed at you.
I know you are doing the best you can to get by in a tough world. I am NOT going to challenge you for that. I wish there were easy answers.
I wish life were that easy.
Kris, for you, as a convert, I want you to know that we (as in those of us BIC) were taught a certain amount of SUPERIORITY over those who joined later. We were “born under the covenant.” It was a special blessing. And you need to realize HOW WRONG that is. I did. We were taught we made the right choices in the pre-existence. That automatically makes ME better than you. I figured that out earlier than YOU did. Or for that matter, makes MARK HOFFMAN, a murderer, better than you. He made those choices, too. Surely you’ve heard this doctrine? Surely you must realize I think it is ridiculous.
I am NOT better than you, because you joined the church after hearing its tenets. And YOU are not better than me, because you heard those tenets, and bought in, and said WOW, eternal families, COOL.
I’m sorry that you don’t see how much I respect you. I’m sorry, also, that you don’t see how I mourn for you.
Just the way it goes, I guess.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:41 am
I appreciate our mutual respect Natalie. I enjoy your site…sorry I took your comments about my marriage incorrectly…then again I don’t know Howy so really it could have been taken either way. I am just glad you stopped making fun of my spelling errors.
I am sorry you feel the need to mourn for me, it makes me so sad for you too. WE are just different and we see doctrine on a (completely) different wavelength a good majority of the time. I know I am not brainwashed or stupid or blind and I don’t feel that anyone needs to mourn for me. I am sure you feel the same about how I feel so sad for you and your anger towards the LDS church. It doesn’t make either of us a bad person. Just different.
I know we can keep that mutual respect for each other as we are both amazing, capable and strong willed women. This conversation isn’t going to keep me from coming to your site, but I will make it clear that you think you are right, I think I am right. WE will just have to be happy with that.
K.
August 31st, 2006 at 12:42 am
Your use of the B Y comment:
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, or rude and filthy, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits; wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is usually bestowed upon mankind.”
The reference to “black” in context doesn’t mean what you think it does. If you only took all the other words he used, would you be brave enough to say that these types of conduct are GOOD for society? He was being truthful and he didn’t reference black people (or American Africans - if they live in the US that is what they should be called), his meaning was that of the use of that word in those times -as in a evil presence - not the “black” people which you tried so hard to stretch it into.
By the way, how do you excuse all the references in the Bible (Old Testiment) to men having more than one wife?
August 31st, 2006 at 7:53 am
That’s your spin on it, Murray. Brigham Young was a well-known racist. And my main point was that Warren Jeffs is being vilified for words BRIGHAM YOUNG SPOKE. That’s an important fact the media is NOT getting.
As for the Bible, I don’t take it literally. There is too much that cannot be taken literally. So I don’t have to excuse them. Men have always been ass-backwards in the way they do things.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:15 am
Interesting spin on the subject yourself Murray. I first off need to make one point. American Africans are people of American decent who live in Africa. African Americans are Americans of African descent who live in America.
Black in the times of Brigham Young and the use of black in the stated dialogue meant black as in people of Negroid race. It is a appropriate to use the word black, because it is one of the words used in the time. PC did not exist in the 19th century or 90 percent of 20th century.
Not a pretty comment on a “holy man’s” view point of others, because he did not have a nice view point of others not caucasian. The truth about BY is not pretty, why try to cover it up? Why try to rewrite it? Why? The only ones fooled are the ones trying to rewrite and those who follow them. The rest of us clearly see the truth of that hatred.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:30 am
What amazes me, personally, is the repeated effort to derail the actual point of the posting. Unless I really can’t comprehend what I read, Natalie’s post is about the fact that the Mormon Church does advocate polygamy–not earthly polygamy at present, but eternal/heavenly/spiritual polygamy.
From where I sit, posts that try to derail the argument into anything else are not valid for the purposes of *this* discussion because they are not about *this* discussion.
I particularly (and vehemently) disagree with this sentiment:
“First of all, for this to be an intelligent argument/discussion ALL points of view must be considered a valid contribution to the conversation. This is fundamental aspect of a good debate.”
If a point of view consists *solely* of “you are wrong” without any explanation, quotation, fact finding to support it, there can’t be any debate. There can’t be any intelligent discussion. At the most, there can be mutual disgust. Such a comment is not a contribution, let alone a valid one, for a debate.
If a point of view consists of statements or arguments that have nothing to do with the matter that is being debated, then such a comments is not a contribution for *that* particular debate. It can be perfectly well articulated and based in fact, and still not be a valid contribution to the matter on the table.
Which, at the rist of being boorishly repetitive, is not about whether there are cases of polygamy in the Old Testament. It’s not about Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, the war, polyamory, the color of my eyes, or any other topic. The debate is about whether polygamy exists as a tenet of faith in the Mormon Church.
August 31st, 2006 at 10:41 am
Natalie and Summer… Yes… women have to do a temple divorce from their first husband to marry in the temple… I saw it happen at least once in Utah before I left.
:-)
August 31st, 2006 at 12:16 pm
If you are a man, when you die, your wife will be taken from you if you do not practice polygamy.
Also, you will not be able to ‘progress’, which is to say, to become a God. Rather, you will be a servant to those who do practice polygamy — and they will become Gods.
Well, that’s what the prophet said; it’s recorded in the offical LDS Journal of Discourses. You can read the full text here:
http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_16/JD16-160.html
Here’s the quote,
“This doctrine of baptism for the dead is a great doctrine, one of the most glorious doctrines that was ever revealed to the human family; and there are light, power, glory, honor and immortality in it. After this doctrine was received, Joseph received a revelation on celestial marriage. You will recollect, brethren and sisters; that it was in July, 1843, that he received this revelation concerning celestial marriage. This doctrine was explained and many received it as far as they could understand it. Some apostatized on account of it; but others did not, and received it in their faith. This, also, is a great and noble doctrine. I have not time to give you many items upon the subject, but there are a few hints, that I can throw in here that perhaps may be interesting. As far as this pertains to our natural lives here, there are some who say it is very hard. They say, “This is rather a hard business; I don’t like my husband to take a plurality of wives in the flesh.” Just a few words upon this. We would believe this doctrine entirely different from what it is presented to us, if we could do so. If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives. The women are entitled to salvation if they live according to the word that is given to them; and if their husbands are good men, and they are obedient to them, they are entitled to certain blessings, and they will have the privilege of receiving certain blessings that they cannot receive unless they are sealed to men who will be exalted. Now, where a man in this Church says, “I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with one,” he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “Here is that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one talent,” and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever. But if the woman is determined not to enter into a plural marriage, that woman when she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity. Well, that is very good, a very nice place to be a minister to the wants of others. I recollect a sister conversing with Joseph Smith on this subject. She told him: “Now, don’t talk to me; when I get into the celestial kingdom, if I ever do get there, I shall request the privilege of being a ministering angel; that is the labor that I wish to perform. I don’t want any companion in that world; and if the Lord will make me a ministering angel, it is all I want.” Joseph said, “Sister, you talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.” He then said to me: “Here, brother Brigham, you seal this lady to me.” I sealed her to him. This was my own sister according to the flesh. Now, sister, do not say, “I do not want a husband when I get up in the resurrection.” You do not know what you will want. I tell this so that you can get the idea. If in the resurrection you really want to be single and alone, and live so for ever and ever, and be made servants, while others receive the highest order of intelligence and are bringing worlds into existence, you can have the privilege. They who will be exalted cannot perform all the labor, they must have servants and you can be servants to them.”
August 31st, 2006 at 12:44 pm
So what if they believe polygamy exists and is condoned in a celestial kingdom. Who the hell cares?! If they want to distance themselves from Jeffs, even though a few core beliefs are similar, don’t get so jacked-up about it. Every time you combat them you feed their fervor. Faith will always when over reason - it’s easier to believe in magic. Reality wears no mask of righteousness.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Howy,
It’s important for leaders, particularly leaders of Churches, to be honest.
It’s flat out dishonest for the LDS leardership to try to skirt the fact that they require polygamy.
More than a few people find that their marriages and families get torn apart because they get enmeshed in the LDS based on misrepresentations of LDS doctrine. Then one day they wake up and find that they’ve been lied to. That’s a huge problem if their spouse doesn’t hear the wake up call.
August 31st, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Howy, how about they OWN up to the fact THEY BELIEVE it. That was my point from the beginning. DON’T try to distance yourself from it, when you TEACH IT AS A TENET. And don’t argue that it isn’t a teaching, when it IS in fact, a teaching. If you can’t wrap your brain around it, I guess that’s the way it goes, but it does NOT make it GO AWAY.
And azteclady, you were bothered by what bothered me. TRYING to change the focus is a common tactic. Talk about the discussion. Don’t try diversions.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Guess I should have couched it differently. What I mean is I DON’T CARE.
When has the leader of ANY church that espouses violence been honest?
As far as believing their garbage . . . duh-ee-dee-dee! They were lost from the start. Why would honesty dissuade them now? C’mon, they WANT to believe that hoopla.
Fire away. Reload. Fire Again.
August 31st, 2006 at 6:17 pm
Sheesh. You don’t care? Go have sex with your bike…..
August 31st, 2006 at 8:49 pm
At one point, I asked about what you are referring to as “spiritual polygamy” when I was in the Young Women’s program. I questioned the double standard of men having more than one wife and women being only allowed one husband. I was told, if I remember correctly, that men were only allowed their subsequent wives in the Celestial Kingdom if their first wife accepted the arrangement.
I have had some very interesting reading since stumbling onto this site last night. There are a lot of things that I never knew.
August 31st, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Hey ML, I think the story changes depending on who you ask. That’s why it is necessary to go BACK TO THE DOCTRINE, which makes it patently clear….
August 31st, 2006 at 10:27 pm
You mean you actually expect me to read them? hehe I don’t actually own a D&C or PGP. I’m not the most shining example of Mormonism.
September 1st, 2006 at 8:09 am
LOLOL, ML. Okay, well, then I won’t ask you to do that.
September 2nd, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Just stopped by for the first time in a long time…wanted to say thanks to Natalie for correcting the information about the Catholic church AND various other Christian denominations…I appreciate that you research ALL sides … great discussion by the way!
January 27th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Some good conversation going on here. It is nice to have a non hate related site discussing the issue. I do not represent the Mormon church, but if you truly want answers to these questions ask any lds leader and or one of those missionaries and they will provide you with what the lds church currently believes on the issue. Sierra’s quote from Gordon B, is real, you can find it on lds.org.
Take care people.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:18 pm
[…] I refer you to the following post, lest I repeat myself a million times. http://www.nataliercollins.com/weblog/?p=326 […]
February 14th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
[…] Brandon wrote, regarding the “Do Mormons Believe in Polygamy” thread: Some good conversation going on here. It is nice to have a non hate related site discussing the issue. I do not represent the Mormon church, but if you truly want answers to these questions ask any lds leader and or one of those missionaries and they will provide you with what the lds church currently believes on the issue. Sierra’s quote from Gordon B, is real, you can find it on lds.org. […]
April 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
LET’S see WHAT the BOOK of MORMON has TO say ABOUT polygamy:
“Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;” Jacob 2:27
THE general RULE is MONOGAMY, but IT goes ON…
“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.” Jacob 2:30
The LORD reserves THE right TO make EXCEPTIONS based ON circumstances HE deems WORTHY. At THIS time AND in THIS life, THE exception IS not IN force AND monogamy REMAINS the RULE.