Mormons & Polygamy

fatboys said:

Few people like to be alone

Click to expand...

Proverbs 21:19
It is better to live in a desert land Than with a contentious and vexing woman.

drstevej said:

It was a light hearted comment.

Click to expand...

Considering our history I'm not inclined to take them as such. I'll attempt to keep that in mind in the future.

awitch said:

Apparently the Mormon Manifesto to abandon polygamy was issued in 1890, over 100 years ago. What exactly is it that you want from the Mormons here who weren't even alive at the time?

Click to expand...

Even if Mormons can enter into legally no polygamy in the US today, so the concept of polygamy is in thinking of Mormons still present. God and Jesus have many women. Monogamy is evil (that said Brigham Young). And in a divorce a man may marry another woman after the legal validity of the temple, a woman can not do that. She must, if she wants to marry another husband, can only annul the first temple marriage by the First Presidency. Note: polygamy was and still is, exclusively for men.

Jutta2 said:

Even if Mormons can enter into legally no polygamy in the US today, so the concept of polygamy is in thinking of Mormons still present.

Click to expand...

Eh?

God and Jesus have many women.

Click to expand...

[citation needed]

Monogamy is evil (that said Brigham Young).

Click to expand...

[citation needed]

And in a divorce a man may marry another woman after the legal validity of the temple, a woman can not do that. She must, if she wants to marry another husband, can only annul the first temple marriage by the First Presidency.

Click to expand...

[citation needed]

Note: polygamy was and still is, exclusively for men.

Click to expand...

[citation needed]

Ran77 said:

She doesn't.

Click to expand...

That's why it's a "what if"-question, you know?

Ran77 said:

Beyond that, polygamy exists in the world today. And I'm not talking about the forced marriage of some sects. There are plenty of plural marriages that exist in which the women willingly entered as one of several wives. I'm sure there are plenty of the reverse situation as well.

Click to expand...

Actually I know of only one culture that practices the reverse and that is the Gurkhas. When a woman marries a man she is automatically married to all of his brothers.

smaneck said:

Actually I know of only one culture that practices the reverse and that is the Gurkhas. When a woman marries a man she is automatically married to all of his brothers.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I would have thought it more common than that.

Ran77 said:

Interesting. I would have thought it more common than that.

Click to expand...

The biggest issue behind not allowing women to have multiple husbands is the question of who do the children belong to. That's why even in the case of the Gurkhas, the husbands have to belong to the same family. That way the children belong to the same extended family.

smaneck said:

The biggest issue behind not allowing women to have multiple husbands is the question of who do the children belong to. That's why even in the case of the Gurkhas, the husbands have to belong to the same family. That way the children belong to the same extended family.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that most, if not all cultures, tend to think the children belong to the mothers. Or at least belong with the mothers.

smaneck said:

The biggest issue behind not allowing women to have multiple husbands is the question of who do the children belong to. That's why even in the case of the Gurkhas, the husbands have to belong to the same family. That way the children belong to the same extended family.

Click to expand...

I would think the biggest issue in that culture would be propegating the family/culture.

5 men + 1 woman = 1 child carried at a time (excepting, of course twins, etc)
5 women + 1 man = up to 5 children (or more w/ twins, etc.) at a time.

Ran77 said:

It seems to me that most, if not all cultures, tend to think the children belong to the mothers. Or at least belong with the mothers.

Click to expand...

That's precisely why women were expected to be monogamous in most cultures. A mother's right over her children is a given. A father's right has to be established de jure.

Ironhold said:

[citation needed] God and Jesus have many women

Click to expand...

"The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children ..." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p.309).

Orson Pratt (Apostle):
We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives, one or more being in eternity, by whom He begat our spirits as well as the spirit of Jesus His first Born, and another being upon the earth by whom He begat the tabernacle of Jesus, as his only begotten in this world. We have also proved most clearly that the Son followed the example of his Father, and became the great Bridegroom to whom kings' daughters and many honorable wives were to be married. We have also proved that both God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ inherit their wives in eternity as well as in time; ... it would be so shocking to the modesty of the very pious ladies of Christendom to see Abraham and his wives, Jacob and his wives, Jesus and his honorable wives, all eating occasionally at the same table, ... If you do not want your morals corrupted, and your delicate ears shocked and your pious modesty put to the blush by the society of polygamists and their wives, do not venture near the New Earth; for polygamists will be honored there, and will be among the chief rulers in that Kingdom (The Seer, p.172-173).

Jedediah M. Grant (Apostle):
Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles.... He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him." ...
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy.... A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp.345-46).

Ironhold said:

[citation needed] Brigham Young: Momogamy is evil

Click to expand...

Brigham Young said that the "monogamic system" had been a "fruitful source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p.128).
The following appeared in the church's Millennial Star:
"... 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" (vol. 15, p.227).

Ironhold said:

[citation needed] Temple Marriage- Divorce

Click to expand...

Church Handbook of Instructions, vol.1, 1999:

Sealing of a Husband and Wife
Living Women
A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later
divorced, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she
may be sealed to another man in her lifetime (see "Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a
Sealing Clearance" on this page).

This is not neccessary for men. See Church Handbook of Instructions:

Living Men
If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed.
If a husband and wife have been sealed and later divorced, the man must receive a sealing clearance from the First Presidency before another woman may be sealed to him (see "Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a Sealing Clearance" on this page). A sealing clearance is
necessary even if the previous sealing has been canceled.

But this is easy for men, not for women.

Ironhold said:

[citation needed] Polygamy was and still is only for men

Click to expand...

Did you ever saw in LDS church history a woman, which was married at the same time, and live with them together, to more than one man?

Jutta2 said:

I do not know who they were,

Click to expand...

This should make it clear that Young was offering up speculation.

(The Seer, p.172-173).

Click to expand...

"The Seer" is one of three works - alongside the "Journal of Discourses" and the first edition of "Mormon Doctrine" - that isn't canonical yet is still thrown at us as if it was.

Most members of the church who know about The Seer's history won't take it as being official.

Jedediah M. Grant (Apostle):
Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles.... He says, "The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him." ...
The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy.... A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp.345-46).

Click to expand...

Sounds more like someone arguing a point than making an official pronouncement.

Brigham Young said that the "monogamic system" had been a "fruitful source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 11, p.128).

Click to expand...

I take it, then, that you're not familiar with how the Western world worked at the time. You see, many of the same critics of polygamy were, hypocritically, adulterers. This continued well up to the Smoot Hearings, when a non-Mormon member of Congress embarrassed the body by pointing this fact out.

In that sense, Young's words could easily be seen as a gripe against the larger world.

Church Handbook of Instructions, vol.1, 1999:

Click to expand...

Got anything newer? The Handbook of Instructions is constantly being revised.

Did you ever saw in LDS church history a woman, which was married at the same time, and live with them together, to more than one man?

Click to expand...

So you're basing this on your own limited lack of observation?

Jutta2 said:

....(The Seer, p.172-173).
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp.345-46).
(vol. 15, p.227).

Click to expand...

None of these are sources of official Mormon doctrine.

Jutta2 said:

Church Handbook of Instructions, vol.1, 1999:...

Click to expand...

You post does correctly document LDS policy, from the correct source. So if you want to argue policy, I give you that point (though the current Handbook would be preferable).

But if you want to argue doctrine and eternities, you'll need to submit a doctrinal source (policy is not doctrine by any stretch).

smaneck said:

That's precisely why women were expected to be monogamous in most cultures. A mother's right over her children is a given. A father's right has to be established de jure.

Click to expand...

But of course, this only becomes an issue in a culture where land ownership, personal property and heritage lines are fundamentally important - and where all of these are established via the male line.

The Mosuo resisted Chinese attempts at assimilation, and continue to practice "walking". Children are brought up by the mothers and her brothers.

@ Ironhold, The word of a prophet, apostle, or other church leader, was regarded by the Mormons as always the Word of God, as "modern Holy Scripture". therefore your argument is wrong; that these are not Mormon Holy Scriptures (such as the Standard Works Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price).
The youngest Church Handbook of Instructions which I have is from 2010, unfortunately in poor photo quality, so that I can't copy anything from it. But the tenor of the statement is identical. Ask your local bishop whether he can give you to view the latest Church Handbook.

@ Jane Doe,

None of these are sources of official Mormon doctrine.

Click to expand...

Everything a prophet, or apostle, or other Church leaders, is considered by Mormons as the Word of God, as modern Holy Scripture.
And they thought it (polygamy) for a long time (from 1831 to 1890)
Today I have come to believe that Smith therefore introduced polygamy, because he was a sex addict. And was able to live out his addiction under the guise of religion.

Jane_the_Bane said:

The Mosuo resisted Chinese attempts at assimilation, and continue to practice "walking". Children are brought up by the mothers and her brothers.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of groups with a matriarchal line.

Jutta2 said:

@ Ironhold, The word of a prophet, apostle, or other church leader, was regarded by the Mormons as always the Word of God, as "modern Holy Scripture". therefore your argument is wrong; that these are not Mormon Holy Scriptures (such as the Standard Works Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price).
The youngest Church Handbook of Instructions which I have is from 2010, unfortunately in poor photo quality, so that I can't copy anything from it. But the tenor of the statement is identical. Ask your local bishop whether he can give you to view the latest Church Handbook.

@ Jane Doe,



Everything a prophet, or apostle, or other Church leaders, is considered by Mormons as the Word of God, as modern Holy Scripture.
And they thought it (polygamy) for a long time (from 1831 to 1890)
Today I have come to believe that Smith therefore introduced polygamy, because he was a sex addict. And was able to live out his addiction under the guise of religion.

Click to expand...

On that you are absolutely WRONG! If you really knew anything about Mormonism and what the Bible says you would know that!

Found the following at Mormonfair.

“Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work–the Seer–together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: “But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.”


My understanding is that Pratt and Young had a yelling match with Pratt finally backing down and admitting he had ad-libbed a lot. Young himself was guilty of ad-libbing on several issues.

Within the Journal of Discourses there is a lot of ad-libbing, they would ponder things and then get up to present it, there was very little censoring. Apostleship was new back then, there hadn’t been any for 2000 years, it was something they had to learn. Read through Gal 2, Paul and Peter had their struggles agreeing too.

To become actual doctrine a principle must first come from the First Presidency, a quorum of three. They must agree in unison. Say the prophet has a stroke in the night and commands we now all stand on our heads to be saved. He has to present that idea to his two counselors, with all likelihood they will turn it down and go find him a doctor. The idea will go no further.

But let’s say the three of them all have the same stroke and the idea gets passed, they then must present it to the quorum to the 12 apostles. To past once again it has to be as “one”

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one” John 17

It’s not likely that all 12 will simultaneously have the same stroke unless God planned it that way. It’s God’s safety system which allows the Prophets and Apostles their agency to make mistakes or even sin but protect us from those mistakes.

You can find a similar system in place in Acts 1,6 and 15 where they came together to iron out their disagreements and then vote on it. They write in their letter “It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord…”

withwonderingawe said:

On that you are absolutely WRONG! If you really knew anything about Mormonism and what the Bible says you would know that!

Found the following at Mormonfair.

“Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work–the Seer–together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: “But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed.”


My understanding is that Pratt and Young had a yelling match with Pratt finally backing down and admitting he had ad-libbed a lot. Young himself was guilty of ad-libbing on several issues.

Within the Journal of Discourses there is a lot of ad-libbing, they would ponder things and then get up to present it, there was very little censoring. Apostleship was new back then, there hadn’t been any for 2000 years, it was something they had to learn. Read through Gal 2, Paul and Peter had their struggles agreeing too.

To become actual doctrine a principle must first come from the First Presidency, a quorum of three. They must agree in unison. Say the prophet has a stroke in the night and commands we now all stand on our heads to be saved. He has to present that idea to his two counselors, with all likelihood they will turn it down and go find him a doctor. The idea will go no further.

But let’s say the three of them all have the same stroke and the idea gets passed, they then must present it to the quorum to the 12 apostles. To past once again it has to be as “one”

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one” John 17

It’s not likely that all 12 will simultaneously have the same stroke unless God planned it that way. It’s God’s safety system which allows the Prophets and Apostles their agency to make mistakes or even sin but protect us from those mistakes.

You can find a similar system in place in Acts 1,6 and 15 where they came together to iron out their disagreements and then vote on it. They write in their letter “It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord…”

Click to expand...

Thanks. You say it so well.

For heaven's sake. That what you're doing, is Mormon obfuscation. What is the official church sites on the Internet, is often not that how it is handled. I live, as you know, in Germany, formerly fascist country. The church here has a wide tradition (since 1860 approximately). Members of my family were in the church since the First World War. So, I have many of my Mormon ancestors diaries. And in all the following statement could be found: what the prophet, the apostle, a Seventy, stake president, bishop, or some other church leaders say, or arranging, is the Word of God and must be obeyed ".
Serve with the following statements:

And these are statements of church leaders and guides:

... They learn to do what they are told; whether old or young: they learn to do what they are told for the future ... If they get told by their leader but they should do something, then do it. It has no interest, whether it is right or wrong. (Heber C. Kimball, 1857)
When our leaders speak, then thought has ceased. If they propose a plan, it's God's plan. If they show the way, then there is no other of sure would ... To think otherwise, without immediate reversal, can cost a faith, could destroy its testimony and leave him as a foreigner in the kingdom of God. (Home Teaching Message, "Support the General Authorities of the Church", 1945)

Click to expand...

You see, how they think, how Mormons act? Don't cheat on me!