Posted on 09/04/2009 7:00:01 PM PDT by Colofornian
When confronting the doctrinal issue of polygamy, Greg Smith posed the question; “Do you trust Father?”
He taught members of the Church that as they turn to their Father in Heaven and trust in His love and mercy, the challenging doctrines of the gospel will become less of a struggle.
Smith mixed humor with testimony while addressing the tough topic of polygamy to audience members during the 11th Annual Mormon Apologetics Conference presented by the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR). The conference was Aug. 6-7 at the South Towne Exposition Center in Sandy.
Smith said some of the most common concerns from members of the church are that polygamy will be mandatory for exaltation, if plural marriage had sexual implications, and, a popular one from the women, which wife will be the most important.
“The idea [of plural marriage] is deeply hurtful for some people, especially women,” Smith said. “It’s more, I’m convinced, than just some kind of social or cultural challenge.”
He reminded the audience that, for those struggling to accept the doctrine of polygamy, there is great strength in the basic principles of the gospel. He emphasized strengthening the testimony that Joseph Smith truly was a prophet and solidifying a trusting relationship with Heavenly Father through prayer.
Smith shared an experience from his own family history about a couple’s challenges with plural marriage. Smith’s great-great-great grandfather married his childhood sweetheart, who was not a member of the Church. The journal of Smith’s ancestor told of his testimony and faithfulness to the gospel.
He also wrote concerning his wife’s struggles with polygamy; “She was blind then, but the day would come when she would see.”
He referenced a Paul Simon song titled “Think Too Much” in advising the audience not to overcomplicate the issue. Rather, he encourages members to remember the principle of faith.
Smith’s lecture was titled “Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Plural Marriage, But Were Afraid To Ask.”
He began with a disclaimer about how polygamy is such a vast topic that if he did cover all the questions, he’d be talking for weeks.
Q: Will all CK be required to live law of plural marriage?
A: Some back then did believe that, but I don't. Essentially, we need to obey God and what he commands. So for those commanded, likely. etc.
Q: Will polygamy be returning etc.
A: Nothing would astonish me more., etc.
Q: Polyandry?
A: Kathryn Daynes "sealings to women already married, evidence supports conflicting interpretations."
Women having more than one husband. Term is used here for convenience. Todd Compton identified polyanrous marriages. See Brian Hales's paper on Sylvia Sessions, who is questionable and appears to have been sealed in 43 not 42, etc.
Why did they do it? Zina Huntington prayed and searched scriptures and found that God required it. There were spiritual components that critics do not acknowledge often.
-Women less likely to accept since married already.
-Husband involved, risk of anger, exposure, violence.
-Even "stranger" than the Bible record, harder to persuade.
All presumes that polyandrous had sexual aspects. Wonder if polyandry wasn't almost exclusively for the sealing issue. Thought it might just be my own attempt to reconsile this easily. But the data seems to support it. Some early Mormons believed a faithful spoiuse could help exalt a non-member or wayward spouse, etc. [Refers to his own family history record of an early member of the church]
Q: Why are leaders, etc. so reticent to discuss it?
A: It is a difficult complex issue and requires a lot of time and research to understand. Also, we don't have all the answers. Finally, leaders do not want to give any indication that they support plural marriage, because there are still other groups that practice it, etc.
Q: I am a woman and NOT a fan of polygamy although I and my husbands are both descendants of it. Was it revealed in 1841?
A: It occurred earlier, around 1831.
MY NOTE: He concedes polygamy already practiced in 1831 -- meaning Hyrum Smith was openly lying about it in writing in the 1840s.
Q: Practiced only by those who received special calling to do so?
A: In a way. D&C 132 said only one person would hold the keys but not that only he and a few would do it. Also later leaders expanded it.
Q: Did it mushroom beyond expectations and get out of control? FLDS show how evil it can be. Is it possible JS made a mistake in revealing it? Richard Bushman said he believes a "faulty" revelation. [according to this questioner]
A: First be careful trying to draw analogies between FLDS people and the rest of fundamentalists or even the early saints. I will elaborate on that on the website. Was this a mistake? Well, anything is possible, and some members of the church take that stance. Todd Compton said it was a mistake because of overenthusiasm, tragic error. etc. I don't think it matters what a member believes about it unless it leads you to believe that JS isn't a prohet, Jesus isn't the Christ, and the keys are not with the Church today. So we can adopt Brother Compton's view if we wish, but should be clear about the full implications of that view before we pick up one end of the stick, because that picks up the other end.
JS claimed it was a revelation from God, that an angel commanded him to practice. Early polygamists reported similar dramatic experiences. So the suggestion Compton offers has a potential fatal weakness: if JS could be mistaken about 132, what about D&C 1, and 2 and 3 and 4 and temples, and so forth. And if he mistook or lied about an angel commanding him from practicing plural marriage, what's to stop him from lying about angels bringing priesthood keys or gold plates etc. Now Compton does not take those conclusions, but critics know what can happen because of the implications and that is why critics have embraced his book so happily. I am not convinced he made a mistake, I am confident he did not, and I will tell you why, and apologize for the personal nature of this. It becameclear on the drive here that I should say this. I was always aware of the practice but I began studying the details with the Van Wagoner book and womanizing claims. I stopped at that point because I hadn't done the leg work. The author dumped it on me and moved on and I had to decide what to do with it. Plural marriage is such a useful tool that way. I thought about it a lot. I knew I didn;t know enough to answer the questions it brings. I knew a lot of time and work was required to know. I knew I might not be intellectually or spiritually up to the task. I knew answers might not exist. So I detemined to take it to the Lord and it was one of the most interesting aspects of my life. I ended up praying differently than what I planned. I found myself telling God what bothered me and instead of insisting on answers, I found myself telling him I would not forsake him or our relationship. That I would not abandon my covenants but do what he wanted me to do. Would it be spiritually dangerous to take the time and effort for this project. I thought it would be the first of many struggling prayers. God told me clearly it would all work out, I had nothing to worry about, and I could devote time and go for it. Be careful what you ask for. I didn't set out to be the person people ask about plural marriage.
Even the idea of plural marriage is deeply hurtful for some people especially women, and its more than some sort of cultural revulsion. It brings up memories of abuse, inconsiderate spouses, easily seen as abuse of reliigon for power. I sympathize with all thoise reactions. Perhaps because of them, we become very uneasy that we dont see in other apologetic issues. A pressure to solve this one above others once and for all, the harder we look the harder it becomes, the sources do little to help...
Polygamy might turn out to be the only way to save some of the European countries. You’d have to artificially alter the natural 1-1 sex ratio for humans to something like six or eight to one but, if you did that, then you wouldn’t need a reproduction rate of much more than one to hold the country’s population together.
Well, in practice that actually can be determined to be a myth. It's not just the number of children per father, but number of children per mother.
Take Lds leader Brigham Young. He had 27 women. 57 kids. In 19th century America, that only worked out to an average of just barely over 2 kids per bedpartner -- well below the demographic average of the times in the U.S.
Several of his wives were too old to have children when he married them.
Polygamy might turn out to be the only way to save some of the European countries.
____________________________________________
Why ???
Is the ratio of men to women 1 to 2 or 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 etc or something ???
Isnt it 1 to 1 ???
Why would you not have i man i woman marriages ???
You dont get any more children just because some old couger gets all the young things and the young men and other guys miss out ...
You still only get one child per one woman...
Nope they were not too old...
One of the wives of BY was 45 one was 41 one 31 and the next two were 30...
one was 29, and the rest in their 20s and teens down to 16...
And he wasnt too old...
his youngest child was only 7 when he died...
Ping to read later
True to some degree. Eliza Snow was 45; August Adams was likely 41; and we don't know how old Maria Lawrence was -- and he had no children with any of these three.
The rest, however, were 30 & under @ marriage. So that still means 57 kids divided by two dozen bedpartners = less than 2.4 kids per partner.
When you consider that 9 partners aged 19-29 at marriage collectively gave Brigham Young "zero" children...
...and another six women gave him six TOTAL children (and these were women aged 18-25 at marriage)...
...and then another two women only gave him two children per (ages 18 & 20, respectively at marriage)...
...for a total of 17 women who had 2 or less children...
...you realize that Brigham probably kept another 50 children from being born by being a "female consumer" of plural bedpartners.
The Mormons should return to the practice—but only for those who are in good standing and can afford a second wife or more. As in times past—most will elect to have but one wife. But, in this way the second wives will have a legal standing in the community as will their children. Its not for everyone to be sure but it shouldn’t be banned and done illegally—Same is true for Muslims who want four wives. I would respect the elders of the church if they had a whole tribe of wives and children. If they could keep their households running, they could run the church with ease.
Polygamy is nothing more than a way for high status males to hoard the available women. (Notice that Muslim countries have a lot of unattached young males running around? Notice that they are easily recruited to blow themselves up?)
"could run the church with ease"?? A polygamous society is ipso facto running itself into the ground.
Or more? Perhaps they could compete with Solomon of old, eh? Campion is right: God makes girls and boys in roughly a 1 to 1 ratio for a reason. (Notice that Muslim countries have a lot of unattached young males running around?)
Regional Polygamy is Regional pre-disposition to a single life for X % of males.
But, if you want to volunteer your wife to the Lds "prophet" like 11 men did in Joseph Smith's day -- all minus any divorce -- let's see how pro-polygamy you are then.
Polygamy placemark.
That must have been AFTER the 1890's, when the MORMON Organization CAVED in to the Mighty United States Government and quit following what GOD had told them was an ETERNAL COVENANT of plural marriage.
The wimpy leadership whined about losing their properties and DECIDED to FOLLOW the LAW of the LAND (instead of what GOD had told them)
The FLDS and the other polygamopus offshoots of SLC mormonism at LEAST follow D&C 132!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.