Plural Families

[_Inconceivable]

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 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.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:24 - 35)

Now, I know what verse 30 says. It's sandwiched between a mountain of reasons why God really hated plural marriage.

Keep in mind that in spite of the math, somehow God's people in the Western Hemisphere propogated into the millions within the short space of 1,000 years (lest we forget the entire populations of numerous cities that were destroyed at the time of Christ's crucifiction)....

And somehow, He (or His people), accomplished this amazing miracle without the institution of poligamy.

And even though the Nephites practiced this abomination for a short period, it didn't seem to make an overall difference to their population:

6 And they were scattered upon much of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites; and they loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts.

(Book of Mormon | Jarom 1:6)

Of course, this means nothing to someone who has only a testimony to stand on.

[_Yoda]

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 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.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.
35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 2:24 - 35)

Now, I know what verse 30 says. It's sandwiched between a mountain of reasons why God really hated plural marriage.

Keep in mind that in spite of the math, somehow God's people in the Western Hemisphere propogated into the millions within the short space of 1,000 years (lest we forget the entire populations of numerous cities that were destroyed at the time of Christ's crucifiction)....

And somehow, He (or His people), accomplished this amazing miracle without the institution of poligamy.

And even though the Nephites practiced this abomination for a short period, it didn't seem to make an overall difference to their population:

6 And they were scattered upon much of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites; and they loved murder and would drink the blood of beasts.

(Book of Mormon | Jarom 1:6)

Of course, this means nothing to someone who has only a testimony to stand on.

Great points! :)

It always comes down to interpretation. The "get out of jail free card" for apologists is verse 30. The claim is always that the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to re-institute polygamy. I'm not so sure.

[_Yoda]

.

Let's turn it around. Would you, Gaz, or BC, or any of the other guys here be comfortable if the situation was reversed. If God commanded that your wife was required to take another husband, how would you feel? Would it be something you could accept? REALLY think about it.

Don't use the old cop out of "it's a non-sequitar because it will never happen."

Do me a favor and seriously imagine yourself in that situation. How would you handle it?

Does imagining this type of situation at least give you guys SOME insight about what women in the Church are concerned about regarding this?

Personally, as I think I have matured emotionally, this view point was a real deal killer for plural marriage. There is not a snowballs' chance in "you no where" that I could be happy sharing my spouse with another man. Just ain't gonna happen.

Of course I am sure there are those who will state that one needs to be really spiritual to do so, or this is the ultimate test and if God commands....

Think PEOPLE! We are not beasts! Think Gaz. Would you want to be one of five or six husbands for your wife? Be honest now.

Thanks, Jason, for an honest response. As a current, active LDS member, how have you resolved your feelings about this, or have you? I ask because I've been trying to do the same thing.

[_Coggins7]

I

think the fact that the "other way exits" provides much wiggle room. It is much easier to have sexual gratification by having many sexual partners/girlfriends/mistresses than to be plurally married. Obviously sexual gratification, which seems to be the primary antiMormon logic, is not the reason for plural marriage.

This is an excellent point, and one that has always intrigued me re the more liberal anti-Mormon critics. Since, in essence, the crux of the sexual revolution was the ennoblement and glorification of serial monogamy over monogamy and traditional concepts of chastity, I've always found it a bit odd that liberal critics of plural marriage would be so exercised about the practice, given that polygamy, is, from a purely behavioral perspective, cutting to the chase.

[_Runtu]

This is an excellent point, and one that has always intrigued me re the more liberal anti-Mormon critics. Since, in essence, the crux of the sexual revolution was the ennoblement and glorification of serial monogamy over monogamy and traditional concepts of chastity, I've always found it a bit odd that liberal critics of plural marriage would be so exercised about the practice, given that polygamy, is, from a purely behavioral perspective, cutting to the chase.

I'm not much of a liberal, so I'm not sure how this applies to me. I'm opposed to "serial monogamy," perhaps even more so than you are, as I've seen the path of destruction such a lifestyle leaves, particularly for the children of such relationships. As I said, what I'm "exercised" about is the inherent inequality of polygyny. It makes women lower appendages of men, instead of full partners in a relationship. Obviously you see it differently.

[_Seven]

The only conclusion I have been able to reach is that there are severe gaps in our understanding of what the afterlife is really going to be like. I think that to assume that we will be having sexual intercourse to create "spirit children" in the next life is ludicrous at best. If we are Gods and Goddesses, exhalted beings, we will be stewards of powers of creation that we cannot comprehend right now. Personally, I hope that the actual sex act doesn't completely go away, because it's an enjoyable part of marriage. ;)

But, to think that this is the only way "spirit children" will be created, is, in my mind, a very narrow-minded view.

My personal thought is that there will be a partner for everyone, and the details have simply not been revealed yet. I really think that the early leaders of the Church got it wrong on this one.

Earthly polygamy is horrific to a Christian principled person. I agree with you Liz that there could be more details revealed that would make the practice less disturbing in the after life but as far as families on earth go, it's destructive and places women in submission to the patriarchal order instead of as equals.

My other problem is the silly notion that single women will need a "righteous man" and therefore the first wife should willingly sacrifice her husband for these women. Wouldn't the "righteous man" be the one who condemns polygamy and stays true to the covenants he made to his first wife? I would have no desire as a single woman to procreate with a married man in the name of God. That would disqualify him as a good husband. I also would rather remain single than cause the first wife that kind of emotional pain.

I also believe like you that if marriage is part of heaven that there will be a partner for everyone but I am not sure if I believe there is marriage in heaven anymore.

[_Coggins7]

No, I see it from a few other angles.

I remember in the Commandments discussion ("H"?). We taught the investigators that this powerful urge within us men was to encourage us to except the responsibility of wife and family.

Now from a woman's point of view... I imagine what it would feel like to be able to hold your companion only 1 night in seven (or if I were fussy, snore, past my prime, real fat or pregnant - 1 in 39). I'm speaking of the companionship, and not necessarily the physical intimacy. The lonelyness. The need for a back rub after a long day at 7 months pregnant. Someone to talk to or just be with at the end of the day or at daybreak. I imagine some women would do nearly anything to get a little attention just to have their husband all to themselves for a few short moments.

Along the same line, I remember the attending that my wife needed when she was pregnant or even nursing our children. Pretty cold blooded to spend the evenings in the next room. What kind of thoughts go through ones head when you hear the headboard in another room banging against the wall.

The curse, I figure, was that true and sacred intimacy was an eternal principle they were wholy unaware of.

It's messed up.

I thought I'd use this comments above as a springboard to just a few comments upon this perennial issue, which, like most others in the Restored Gospel (or the Gospel at any other time it has been present on the earth in a substantial way) ultimately resolves itself into a question of testimony; that is, the principle of revelation and whether or not the individual has access to that principle, whether it functions in his or her life and if so, to what degree.

The principle of plural marriage is true. That is not an arguable point for the spiritually mature Latter Day Saint. The problem arises when we begin to think seriously about the practice of plural marriage, i.e., how or what it would be like to be involved in those kinds of relationships and those kinds of families. The problem then becomes second guessing the Lord upon principles we think we understand in our own subjective world of fantasy regarding how we think it would be (and this is especially important with regard to the "next life", a world we have no experience or direct perceptual understanding of at this time) and how we think, in our own present circumstances at at our present level of spiritual and intellectual evolution.

Clearly, exercising oneself about the kind of family relationships we will be a part of millions, or billions of years from now, at a completely different level of consciousness and understanding, is a bit presumptuous. Many of us it seems, including many LDS, conceive of the Celestial world as not much other than a continuation of this life and its concerns and attachments, only more so. We pay lip service to the idea that things in that world will be much different than this, and our concerns focused on other interests, but our comprehension is severely limited precisely by the very earthly, mortal conceptual limitations that preclude our understanding of many Gospel principles in any but highly rudimentary form. We see through a glass darkly, when we see through it at all.

Name your poison: Plural marriage, animal sacrifice, war, even genocidal war; a prophet calling down plague or famine upon an entire people; Christ threatening those who do not accept him and keep his commandments with a lake of fire and brimstone, and with "wailing and gnashing of teeth", any number of doctrines and concepts within the Gospel can be looked at with an eye of disdain and even horror, if one's consciousness has not developed, through the training and nurturing of the spirit, to the point of being able to comprehend such things from a spiritual perspective, as opposed to a purely human, mortal, socio-cultural, time and era based one.

As it stands, LDS have only the following instances of plural marriage to contend with:

1. Some prophets in the Old Testament, but clearly, not all.

2. Perhaps 5% to 7% of LDS in the late 19th century.

There is no evidence this was practiced at all by the 1st century New Testament Saints. Book of Mormon peoples were forbidden outright to practice it, and there has been no practice of it since the late 19th century. The crux of this matter, based on the fragmentary scriptural record we have thus far, is that, as far as the Lord's people are concerned, a very rare practice, whether in ancient times or modern. One must have a testimony of something such as this yes, but then again, one must have a testimony of the Gospel per se, even down to the most fundamental concepts such as the existence and messiahship of Christ, the Atonement, the resurrection, and many other difficult concepts. None of these ideas, looked at in a certain way or through a certain filter, are either believable or, to many, intellectually tolerable, at face value. And this isn't just a matter of "faith"; its a matter of direct revelation in which the Spirit of God speaks to the individual spirit intelligence within each of us "precisely as if we had no body at all".

Faith is not knowledge, and faith alone without its foundation in revelation is little more than religion qua religion in a strictly sociological sense; a creation of culture.

In essence then, I think the worry over how things will be in eons to come vis-a-vis plural marriage is misplaced. In the economy of Heaven, we will ourselves be capacitated to comprehend and receive whatever forms personal and family relationships take at that point. To put it quite simply, the concerns we have bout certain things now will not matter to us then because will will then be different beings, at the most fudnamental levels, than we are at present.

As to the claims of Joseph's supposed immorality concerning the practice of plural marriage, several generations of competent LDS scholarship on the subject are more than enough to put to rest any fears or doubts the faithful member has in this area, at least as far as I'm concerned. The sheer dearth of documentary historical evidence is the main point here, as are potential problems with the veracity of the sources. This is important, of course, because if Joseph was not morally qualified to be the leader and founder of the Lord's restored church, let alone a serious religious reformer, the entire edifice of the Restored Gospel falls with him (as little he ever said of a religious nature could be trusted). This is where, again, revelation and the witness of the Spirit intrude upon unaided reason and the biases, prejudices, enculturation, and psychological dynamics each individual brings to the questions of the Gospel. "whom say ye that I am?" "whom say ye that Joseph was?" "What say ye of the resurrection?" Well, God knows whether Joseph was a lecher or whether he was as moral an individual as any of his other prophets have been, and was practicing, under stict rules and Priesthood authority, something he had commanded him to do.

The way is always open, after all the names have been called, all the railing accusations brought, all the lofty moral finger wagging done, to know for oneself. Of course, this implies one actually wants to know if the Gospel itself is true or not, which, for many, may not be a concern at all, even though resolving that question will answer any further questions about Joseph's character.

Loran

[_Runtu]

The way is always open, after all the names have been called, all the railing accusations brought, all the lofty moral finger wagging done, to know for oneself. Of course, this implies one actually wants to know if the Gospel itself is true or not, which, for many, may not be a concern at all, even though resolving that question will answer any further questions about Joseph's character.

Yes, it does come down to whether or not the church and its gospel are true. Of course, some people believe that the gospel is true but Joseph did wrong in his practice of polygyny. It's not such a black-and-white thing. But then for those of us who know the church isn't true, there's no need to defend this practice. One need not rail or wag fingers to disapprove of his behavior.

[_Yoda]

First of all, Coggins, thank you for your contribution to the thread. I appreciate your insight.

A couple of questions:

Clearly, exercising oneself about the kind of family relationships we will be a part of millions, or billions of years from now, at a completely different level of consciousness and understanding, is a bit presumptuous. Many of us it seems, including many LDS, conceive of the Celestial world as not much other than a continuation of this life and its concerns and attachments, only more so. We pay lip service to the idea that things in that world will be much different than this, and our concerns focused on other interests, but our comprehension is severely limited precisely by the very earthly, mortal conceptual limitations that preclude our understanding of many Gospel principles in any but highly rudimentary form. We see through a glass darkly, when we see through it at all.

I agree. Don't you think this concept could also be applied to Brigham Young's Journal of Discourses "insights" regarding Heavenly Father and Christ both having multiple wives, and his theory that the highest exaltation can only be achieved through plural marriage? Personally, I think there are many times when he was presumptuous. His whole concept of the need of the physical body to "birth" spirit children is rather ludicrous when you think about it. If we are Gods and Goddesses, we will have means to create at our fingertips that we have no concept of at this time. Look at all of man's progress with modern science. Can you imagine what an exalted being could accomplish?

As to the claims of Joseph's supposed immorality concerning the practice of plural marriage, several generations of competent LDS scholarship on the subject are more than enough to put to rest any fears or doubts the faithful member has in this area, at least as far as I'm concerned. The sheer dearth of documentary historical evidence is the main point here, as are potential problems with the veracity of the sources. This is important, of course, because if Joseph was not morally qualified to be the leader and founder of the Lord's restored church, let alone a serious religious reformer, the entire edifice of the Restored Gospel falls with him (as little he ever said of a religious nature could be trusted). This is where, again, revelation and the witness of the Spirit intrude upon unaided reason and the biases, prejudices, enculturation, and psychological dynamics each individual brings to the questions of the Gospel. "whom say ye that I am?" "whom say ye that Joseph was?" "What say ye of the resurrection?" Well, God knows whether Joseph was a lecher or whether he was as moral an individual as any of his other prophets have been, and was practicing, under stict rules and Priesthood authority, something he had commanded him to do.

My question here is whether or not Joseph's interpretation of what was commanded was correct. He did, for a time, practice the Law of Adoption. It was practiced feverishly because he honestly thought that the only way his friends as well as his family could be saved, was through sealing them all to him.

This practice was later done away with and changed. Everyone didn't have to be sealed to the prophet. You could be sealed as individual families.

Being married in the temple to one spouse was also recognized as counting as "Celestial Marriage", trumping Brigham Young's earlier claim. The quote is from J. Reuben Clark. I'll have to look it up.

Anyway...lots of things to think about.

[_Coggins7]

I agree. Don't you think this concept could also be applied to Brigham Young's Journal of Discourses "insights" regarding Heavenly Father and Christ both having multiple wives, and his theory that the highest exaltation can only be achieved through plural marriage? Personally, I think there are many times when he was presumptuous. His whole concept of the need of the physical body to "birth" spirit children is rather ludicrous when you think about it. If we are Gods and Goddesses, we will have means to create at our fingertips that we have no concept of at this time. Look at all of man's progress with modern science. Can you imagine what an exalted being could accomplish?

1. Its of no concern whatever to me whether the Father and Son have one wife or millions. Heaven is not earth. "My ways are not your ways" sayeth the Lord. Why, I wonder, this consistent desire to impose earthly norms of human relationships on God in the Celestial world? Do we need God to be a kind of celestial Joe Sixpack? Just one of the guys, only more so? The truth is as it is. I don't know what the truth is regarding my Father in Heaven and Christ on this matter, but at some point, when I find out, I'm going to have to accept that truth as it stands, if I'd like to continue my eternal progression.

I don't understand what you find 'ludicrous" about the necessity of having a physical body to have spirit children in the eternities and continue in God's work and glory. This entire concept is tied up with the necessity of being married for time and all eternity (to at least one eternal companion) and then being resurrected in the flesh, since only when spirit is united with element in a glorified state can a man or woman receive a "fullness of joy". The highest exaltation of which we are capable in the Celestial Kingdom, involves not just eternal life, but "eternal lives"; the ability to become co-creaters with God of innumerable spirit sons and daughters in eternity. I don't see how the physical resurrection, the requirement of eternal marriage, and the concept of eternal lives can be other thatn inextricably linked. BY isn't by far the only Prophet who has taught the necessity of a glorified physical body for the blessing of eternal posterity.

I don't know about Young's usage of the term "birth" with regard to spirit children, suffice it to say there is no official doctrine on that matter. Personally, I don't believe perfect, glorified, Celestial goddesses will "birth" spirit children in the manner of mortality. At the same time, I fully accept the doctrine that a physical, resurrected body and the eternal covenant of marriage are necessary for that divine parenthood and creation. How the "birth" takes place I have no idea, but whatever the nature of that phenomena, its enough to know that we will be, indeed, the literal eternal parents of those children, or intelligences.

Frankly, I think people of the 19th century though in literal terms about other worlds much in the same way we do today. We impose the archetypes, concepts, symbols, and aspects of our physical environment upon our concepts of alternate worlds. Look at the design of the Nautilus from 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, and then look at the design of the Seaview from Voyage To The Bottom of The Sea a century later. Look at how spacecraft were conceived in Fifties science fiction films and then look at 2001: A Space Odyssey and then Star Wars and even later films.

I think Young and others sometimes conceived things in literalistic terms, based upon their experiences of life close to the earth and nature (we moderns are so far removed from life in the 19th century I think its easier for our minds, as a people, to dwell on abstractions than our progenitors. Even in ancient times, wealthy scholars or philosophers, far enough removed from the rigors of survival, could let their minds dwell on concepts like the possible strange and marvelous ways spirit children could be produced).

In any case, I wouldn't worry to much about the JofD. There's a great deal of interesting stuff in there. Some of it inspired, some not. The value level is different from page to page. Were only worried about the settled and accepted doctrines of the church as found in the scriptures and core ideas and counsel taught by church leaders consistently over time; a body of teaching or counsel that forms a mosaic with what has already been revealed. This is why I don't worry about Adam God.

Young was onto something, or thought he was but couldn't articulate it in a coherent manner, perhaps be cause he didn't understand the entire thing himself. I'm certain that the fragmentary nature of the quotations on that subject are a part of the problem as well, as is the fact that he never set down at length in his own words what he was driving at.

Your not going to get any argument from me that every jot and tittle spoken by a GA, if it has doctrinal relevance, is binding.