Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Yoda

Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _Yoda »

With the help of Brackite pointing out some quotes for me, I asked the following questions on the Eternal Marriage thread. I thought that some of the responses here might make a nice stand-alone topic. Thanks again for the find, Brackite! :)

Brackite wrote:Bruce R. McConkie:

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:"Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D. & C. 132:7, 29-66.)

All who pretend or assume to engage in plural marriage in this day, when the one holding the keys has withdrawn the power by which they are performed, are guilty of gross wickedness."

(Mormon Doctrine, Page 578.).


[ Link: , And Link: ]



Take Care, Liz!


Thank you so much, sweetie! :) This is exactly what I was looking for.

I find it interesting that President McConkie's statement here DIRECTLY contradicts not only Brigham Young's comments, but the comments of all of the prior prophets in the early Church era.

I'm curious as to how apologists resolve this? Does this fall under modern revelation trumping prior revelation? Or, is this a case of prior leaders not really understanding what Joseph Smith was trying to set up in the first place? Or, is it the case of Joseph, himself, not really understanding?

My problem with this theory is, if Joseph was inspired and entrusted by God to set up Christ's Church in the modern day, how could he have perceived such a vital part of the gospel so wrong? And why didn't God step in to correct this error, instead of allowing thousands of his innocent children to suffer needlessly because of this misinterpretation?

BC? DCP? Bob? Nehor? Asbestosman? Alter Idem? Just Me? Any other apologist lurkers? Your comments are welcome! :)
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _moksha »

liz3564 wrote:

My problem with this theory is, if Joseph was inspired and entrusted by God to set up Christ's Church in the modern day, how could he have perceived such a vital part of the gospel so wrong?

BC? DCP? Bob? Nehor? Asbestosman? Alter Idem? Just Me? Moksha? Any other apologist lurkers? Your comments are welcome! :)


I think the flaming sword was to blame.

.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _harmony »

liz3564 wrote:My problem with this theory is, if Joseph was inspired and entrusted by God to set up Christ's Church in the modern day, how could he have perceived such a vital part of the gospel so wrong?


Sin. And a pretty big one, at that. It tends to clog up the communcation channels between God and his fallen prophet.

And why didn't God step in to correct this error, instead of allowing thousands of his innocent children to suffer needlessly because of this misinterpretation?


He did. No one was listening. So he shook up the government, and they took care of the rest.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Re: Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _Gazelam »

Joseph was the prophet of the restoration in this the dispensation of the fulness of times. Part of that restoration was the doctrine of Plural Marriage.

When Brigham Young and other prophets spoke on the matter they were doing so in a time that the commandment was in force, and therefore their words applied to the people they were speaking to.

McConkie's words are correct in our time now.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _harmony »

Gazelam wrote:Joseph was the prophet of the restoration in this the dispensation of the fulness of times. Part of that restoration was the doctrine of Plural Marriage.

When Brigham Young and other prophets spoke on the matter they were doing so in a time that the commandment was in force, and therefore their words applied to the people they were speaking to.


Wrong. Christ fulfilled all things; there was no need to restore something that had long since fulfilled any practical or spiritual usefulness.

It was an Abomination... in the Old Testament, in the Book of Mormon, and in 1831 when Joseph first bedded Fanny.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _asbestosman »

liz3564 wrote:I'm curious as to how apologists resolve this? Does this fall under modern revelation trumping prior revelation? Or, is this a case of prior leaders not really understanding what Joseph Smith was trying to set up in the first place? Or, is it the case of Joseph, himself, not really understanding?

I do not know. I do know this: obediance is necessary for exaltation. If God commands us to be circumcised, then it is necessary for exaltation. If God no longer commands it, then it is not necessary for exaltation. If God commands us to live the law of Consecration as part of the restoration of all things, then that is necessary for exaltation.

One thing I wonder about is why I never remember hearing about circumcision as a necessary part of the restoration of all things.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Re: Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _Gazelam »

Harmony,

It was an Abomination... in the Old Testament


Id swat you down on this Harmony, but that would be like congratulating myself for beating a mongoloid at chess.

Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Ray A

Re: Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _Ray A »

If you take Mc Conkie's statement at face-value, I'd say "what he told Eugene England" (about Brigham teaching false doctrine re Adam-God).

Portion of Mc Conkie's letter to England:

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.


Professor England, by the way, rejected the idea that plural marriage is essential to exaltation. But then, he was one of the founders of Dialogue, that "anti-Mormon" publication.
_Yoda

Re: Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _Yoda »

Gazelam wrote:Harmony,

It was an Abomination... in the Old Testament


Id swat you down on this Harmony, but that would be like congratulating myself for beating a mongoloid at chess.

Gaz


I may have a little checkmate for you, Gaz. ;)

Did you, by chance, read this quote that Analytics pointed out in his thread regarding comparisons between Jewish views and Mormon views of polygamy?
Analytics wrote:From a Jewish perspective, what does the Bible teach about polygamy? Here is a quote from the book Biblical literacy: the most important people, events, and ideas of the Hebrew Bible by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin (pages 410-414).
Quote:
Biblical law permits a man to have more than one wife (Deuteronomy 21:17); indeed many of the Bible's most prominent figures (e.g., Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon) practiced polygamy. Since polygamy was permitted throughout the ancient Near East, this should come as no surprise. What is significant, however, is that biblical narrative, as opposed to biblical law, depicts multiple marriages as almost always leading to multiple miseries.

Abraham takes a concubine-wife because of his wife Sarah's barrenness. Indeed, it is at Sarah's insistence that he takes her servant Hagar as a wife, for, as Sarah tells him: "Perhaps I shall have a son through her" (Genesis 16:2). When Hagar becomes pregnant, she starts treating Sarah with contempt. Sarah blames Abraham for Hagar's arrogance and Abraham, wishing to avoid marital conflict, tells his wife to treat Hagar as she wishes...

Some years later, Sarah finally gives birth to her own son, whereupon she forces Abraham to expel Hagar and Ishamel. Sarah speaks of hagar in the most contemptuous of tones: "Cast out that slave-woman and her son, for the son of that slave shall not share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."...

[A few pages of details about other biblical references to polygamy]

...Are there any happy polygamous marriages described in the Bible? No, although sometimes we are given no information about a marriage, so we have no way of knowing whether or not it was happy (for example, see Lamech, the Bible's first polygamist [Genesis 4:19,23]).

In those instances, however, where the text does supply details about a polygamous marriage, it either is miserable for at least one partner (Hagar and Leah), creates hatred between the children (Joseph and his brothers, David's sons), or wreaks havoc with the husband's character (Solomon).


There is yet one further indication that the Bible's preference is for "one man, one wife." When God created the world, he populates it with only two people, one of each sex. He could have given Adam a second wife but doesn't. Furthermore, the Bible's very first reference to marriage presupposes a state of monogamy: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, so that they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).

Why, then, does the Bible permit polygamy?

The nature of biblical law generally is evolutionary rather than revolutionary (except when it comes to uprooting idolatry, with which the Bible refuses to brook any compromise). To have categorically outlawed multiple marriages in a world where they were widely practiced would most likely have lead to an increase in adulterous affairs, or to affairs with unmarried women to whom the men would have no obligations. Better, therefore, for a man to have several wives, to each of whom he has legal obligations.

However, by depicting in considerable detail the misery generated within these marriages, biblical narrative makes it clear that it is far better for a man to have only one wife. As we shall see in other instances (e.g., the laws favoring the firstborn son versus the narratives favoring the younger sons; see entry 201), biblical narrative ultimately influences Jewish life more than biblical law. The Talmud, compiled during the early centuries of the Common Era, lists well over one thousand rabbis. We know of none who practiced polygamy. During the tenth century, a rabbinic ban was issued outlawing polygamy for all Jews living in Europe. There is little question that the rabbis felt their act was in consonance with the Bible’s ethical spirit. This ban, uniformly accepted in Jewish life today, represents perhaps the most dramatic victory of biblical narrative over biblical law.


Pay particular attention to my bolded emphasis, my friend.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Conflicts Within the Plural Marriage Doctrine

Post by _bcspace »

I find it interesting that President McConkie's statement here DIRECTLY contradicts not only Brigham Young's comments, but the comments of all of the prior prophets in the early Church era.

I'm curious as to how apologists resolve this


The correct thing to do first is ignore all statements not published by the Church as the Church itself does not consider such to be doctrine. I'm not, for the moment, going to assess BRM's statement. I'll wait for you to find it or something similar in LDS doctrine. The same goes for any and all "comments" that you may have had in mind.

So when you come up with something doctrinal, let us know.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
Post Reply