Eternal Marriage rooted in the polygamist past of Joseph Smith?

[_The Nehor]

ok so next question is why you are not married yet.

Why do you not follow the counsel of the leaders that you defend?

Simple, I am. I can't follow the law of the land though as harems are still technically illegal. So legally I'm not married but I've fulfilled the gospel requirement. Bubbles, Candy, and Foxy all say hi to all of the participants on this board.

[_truth dancer]

Polygamy is something that has always bugged me. Why, I know not. Maybe it just didn't seem "right" for a Christian religion. I was brought up in Catholicism, but by no means was I fanatical. Mormonism was in a sense an extension of my Catholicism, so the idea of polygamy was totally foreign to me. That was an aberration from Old Testament times, a "primative" early form of Judaism which was refined by Jesus, who in my opinion taught monogamy. If I was ever going to go the whole way, I thought, it would be by following the gospels, not Moses or Abraham. The first impression I got of Mormon polygamy was a couple of months after I was baptised. A missionary mentioned after a stake conference that Joseph Smith once "tested" Heber C. Kimball by asking him for his wife. I was nearly floored. "Yes", he said, "but it was only a test". That brought some relief, but it still seemed awkward. Completely oblivious to the whole story, what the missionary told me still stuck in my mind, but I "shelved" it.

When my wife and I went to the New Zealand temple in 1978 to be "sealed", I realised by that time that there was a connection between D&C 132 and "eternal marriage"/polygamy, so I asked the temple president if polygamy was "necessary" in the long term. No, he said, we could chose whether or not we wanted more wives, or could remain with just one. I thought I'd opt for just one, if I was going to stay with the Church. As my knowledge of 19th century polygamy grew over the years, it disturbed me more and more. It just didn't seem "Christian", and it ruffled my belief to some extent, and was one of the main points that initially made me unsteady in the Church, very early on. I told this to an older sister, and very good friend of mine, and she was almost flippant. She thought polygamy was a okay. That didn't help, and I felt kind of "out of it". The Book of Mormon didn't seem to support it either, but there was that conflict with D&C 132.

Mormon Enigma and Van Wagoner's Mormon Polygamy: A History, certainly set me straight. And then Quinn's Dialogue article on LDS plural marriages post-Manifesto. Problems with Book of Mormon anachronisms had not even entered my mind in those years, and I still believed the Book of Mormon to be historical. Then I became aware of the Witnesses dissenting because of polygamy, especially Whitmer's An Address To All Believers in Christ. Joseph, wrote Whitmer, had "fallen" like King David. He succumbed to temptation, and took many wives. I was relieved to know that Whitmer felt this way, but he was an "apostate". He rejected the D&C in toto, which in my opinion was a vital part of Mormonism, or if you were going to remain a Mormon.

Fast foward to 1990. An elderly missionary couple is trying to reactivate me, so I asked them if they were aware of Joseph's polygamy, and that he sometimes took other men's wives as his own. The Elder slammed his hand on the dining room table, "don't be ridiculous, if he did that he could not be a prophet". We nevertheless remained good friends, and later he send me copy of Richard Poll's Reflections of a Mormon Historian, a sort of way to deal with "cog.diss".

I don't believe the answer is to "force" people to accept polygamy. My answer may be even more radical: Dump D&C 132 from the LDS canon, and admit it was a mistake. Joseph had indeed gone astray, as Whitmer suggested. Regardless of what apologists say, the Book of Mormon and D&C 132 are in direct and unavoidable conflict, but the Book of Mormon is the "Keystone" of Mormonism, not the D&C.

Hi Ray...

Nice post. :-)

My father is agnostic (and a truly remarkable man), my mother (she was also incredible), joined the LDS church a few years after I. The teachings in my home growing had nothing to do with Christianity but everything to do with honesty, integrity, and decency. In my home, adultery (men cheating on their wives, men taking multiple women, having an affair, men having a harem, men having a mistress, plural marriage, polygamy, whatever you want to call it), was absolutely so wrong that there is no way in Heaven it could be considered something holy or decent. It was just flat out wrong. I was taught that no decent man would EVER cheat (or openly engage in sex with other women) on his wife, or screw girls. I mean it had nothing to do with God but it was about what was a decent human being and what makes for a good marriage and relationship.

I was completely utterly absolutely SHOCKED out of my mind when I discovered polygamy was embraced and taught in the church as a divine principle. Stupid me for not reading up prior to baptism. (sigh).

When I heard from my non-LDS class mates that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, and asked my local leaders, I was told that many single women sealed themselves to Joseph Smith after he died so they could receive exaltation. (Weird but, whatever).

STUPID me for believing these men who claimed divine inspiration and who had been life long members of the church. I should have walked to the nearest library (I was twelve) and checked out some rare books on Mormonism. Oh wait, they didn't have even one book on Mormonism in my community library. I guess I should have known that there were books somewhere in Utah with information about Joseph Smith and his sexual relationships with girls nearly my age, but alas I was too stupid to consider a prophet of god would act in such a dispicable way.

My point is, even without Christianity I think there is something in many human beings that recognize the harem lifestyle along with its inequality is unhealthy, primitive, animalistic, and completely degrading to women.

~td~

[_Ray A]

STUPID me for believing these men who claimed divine inspiration and who had been life long members of the church. I should have walked to the nearest library (I was twelve) and checked out some rare books on Mormonism. Oh wait, they didn't have even one book on Mormonism in my community library. I guess I should have known that there were books somewhere in Utah with information about Joseph Smith and his sexual relationships with girls nearly my age, but alas I was too stupid to consider a prophet of god would act in such a dispicable way.

My point is, even without Christianity I think there is something in many human beings that recognize the harem lifestyle along with its inequality is unhealthy, primitive, animalistic, and completely degrading to women.

Interesting account, TD. I'm not as good a person as you are, and although nominal Christians my family was no where near being strict, something I actually liked. Some of my ancestors were also quasi-polygamists, who had "mistresses". So I can't claim any purity and look self-righteously upon 19th century Mormons. You know the old saying, people who live in glass houses....

The problem for me was the gap between polygamy and modern teachings, and initially not even knowing about polygamy. I didn't know on my mission, and I don't think most of the missionaries knew Joseph was actually a polygamist, except those who had polygamist ancestors, such as my Mission President's wife. We believed he had one wife - Emma, and that polygamy was mostly "rumour", but this was in the mid-'70s, when, as you note, information was scarce, and the Church certainly never let the cat out of the bag. The first real encounter I had with historical polygamy was when I read Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History, in the late '70s, but she was an "anti-Mormon" so I didn't take it very seriously, but realised she probably wasn't just telling lies, but I'd need it confirmed from "Church sources".

The emphasis on fidelity and monogamy in the Church was very strong, and in the temple ceremonies the penalties for transgression very severe. So I suppose the way I saw it, upon learning of polygamy, was, "it's not okay to commit adultery, unless God said it was okay". Somehow the Ten Commandments got compromised, which was later "refined" by Jesus, but never included polygamy. Read the "fine print" in D&C 132, however.

The idea of "future polygamy" still doesn't appeal to me. I think if you find the right person (I haven't, by the way), and you're happy with that person, love that person, you'd only want to be with them. "Celestial sharing" just seems totally out of whack to me. But then, I'm only a darkened apostate who drinks beer. See, I said I wasn't as good as you are.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ray...

LOL!

Well, just to be clear I am not that great of a person but I was raised by amazing parents who had a very strong sense of integrity and decency. :-)

And, my friend, drinking beer does not make someone a not-so-great person. in my opinion it is a behavior similar to ingesting trans fats or corn syrup! (smile)

OTOH, adult, married men screwing girls is right up there on top of the list, right along with other forms of child abuse.

~td~

[_Ray A]

And, my friend, drinking beer does not make someone a not-so-great person. in my opinion it is a behavior similar to ingesting trans fats or corn syrup! (smile)

Next time someone asks me "what are you doing tonight?", my reply will be "ingesting trans fats and corn syrup". Sounds more civilised.

[_Brackite]

ok so next question is why you are not married yet.

Why do you not follow the counsel of the leaders that you defend?

Simple, I am. I can't follow the law of the land though as harems are still technically illegal. So legally I'm not married but I've fulfilled the gospel requirement. Bubbles, Candy, and Foxy all say hi to all of the participants on this board.

Uhm, You are Not following the counsel of your LDS leaders, Nehor.

The LDS Church Leaders have basically, essentially, and practically always taught the marriage is an important commenmdent, and that in order for a man to be able to enter into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, he must get married.

The Former 13th LDS President Ezra Taft Benson Stated:

My dear single adult brethren, we are also concerned. We want you to know that the position of the Church has never changed regarding the importance of celestial marriage. It is a commandment of God. The Lord’s declaration in Genesis is still true: “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2:18).

To obtain a fulness of glory and exaltation in the celestial kingdom, one must enter into this holiest of ordinances.

Without marriage, the purposes of the Lord would be frustrated. Choice spirits would be withheld from the experience of mortality. And postponing marriage unduly often means limiting your posterity, and the time will come, brethren, when you will feel and know that loss.

I can assure you that the greatest responsibility and the greatest joys in life are centered in the family, honorable marriage, and rearing a righteous posterity. And the older you become, the less likely you are to marry, and then you may lose these eternal blessings altogether.

President Spencer W. Kimball recounted an experience he once had:

“Recently I met a young returned missionary who is 35 years old. He had been home from his mission for 14 years and yet he was little concerned about his bachelorhood, and laughed about it.

“I shall feel sorry for this young man when the day comes that he faces the Great Judge at the throne and when the Lord asks this boy: ‘Where is your wife?’ All of his excuses which he gave to his fellows on earth will seem very light and senseless when he answers the Judge. ‘I was very busy,’ or ‘I felt I should get my education first,’ or ‘I did not find the right girl’—such answers will be hollow and of little avail. He knew he was commanded to find a wife and marry her and make her happy. He knew it was his duty to become the father of children and provide a rich, full life for them as they grew up. He knew all this, yet postponed his responsibility” (Ensign, Feb. 1975, p. 2).

...

Honorable marriage is more important than wealth, position, and status. As husband and wife, you can achieve your life’s goals together. As you sacrifice for each other and your children, the Lord will bless you, and your commitment to the Lord and your service in His kingdom will be enhanced.



( Link: )

And LDS Apostle Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Pretty Recently Stated:

There is another possible contributing factor to the demise of dating and the prominence of the culture of hanging out. For many years the Church has counseled young people not to date before age 16. Perhaps some young adults, especially men, have carried that wise counsel to excess and determined not to date before 26 or maybe even 36.

Men, if you have returned from your mission and you are still following the boy-girl patterns you were counseled to follow when you were 15, it is time for you to grow up. Gather your courage and look for someone to pair off with. Start with a variety of dates with a variety of young women, and when that phase yields a good prospect, proceed to courtship. It’s marriage time. That is what the Lord intends for His young adult sons and daughters. Men have the initiative, and you men should get on with it. If you don’t know what a date is, perhaps this definition will help. I heard it from my 18-year-old granddaughter. A “date” must pass the test of three p’s: (1) planned ahead, (2) paid for, and (3) paired off.


( Link: )

[_Brackite]

Hello,

During the 19th Century, Celestial Marriage was indeed basically, essentially, practically and virtually defined as Plural Marriage for all of eternity, By the LDS Church.
Here is what The Former Second LDS Church President Brigham Young, Stated about this topic:

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.


( Journal of Discourses, Volume 16. , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

It was not until the early 20th Century, when the definition of Celestial Marriage was changed by The 7th LDS Church President Heber J. Grant and his Counselors, to just mean monogamous marriage between a man and a woman for all of eternity.

[_Ray A]

This link has been on the Internet for quite a while, and will also be useful for those wanting to know what the 19th century leaders taught about plural marriage. It was, without doubt, a requirement for exaltation at that time:

Was Mormon Plural Marriage a requirement for Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom?

One example from Heber C. Kimball:

Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord's servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny "Mormonism," and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out by his people.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.5, p.204 - p.205, Heber C. Kimball, October 12, 1856 (My emphasis)

[_Yoda]

It was not until the early 20th Century, when the definition of Celestial Marriage was changed by The 7th LDS Church President Heber J. Grant and his Counselors, to just mean monogamous marriage between a man and a woman for all of eternity.

Brackite, do you have a quote or a link specifying when this was changed and the exact wording of the change?

Did President Grant state that monogamous marriage was considered Celestial Marriage if performed in the temple in addition to plural marriage?

Something I have been confused about is this:

Is plural marriage still considered an ultimate requirement for the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom? I have heard responses both ways on this one.

[_Ray A]

Something I have been confused about is this:

Is plural marriage still considered an ultimate requirement for the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom? I have heard responses both ways on this one.

This link may be of some help, Liz:

Messenger Magazine