The Classics: Polygamy & The Rejection of Orthodoxy
Posted by Wade on January 31st, 2006
Orthodoxy is the quality of conforming to established doctrine or dogma. Unfortunately, that which is orthodox is not necessarily truth. However, we as mortals tend to accept things as truth if they are deeply engrained in social norms and traditions. Thus, quite often we associate orthodoxy with truth without questioning it; and when something comes along to challenge our world view or what we accept as truth, we often automatically dismiss it as false.
To me, this seems to be the main stumbling block to other religions accepting modern revelation: they just can’t get over the established dogma (established for nearly two thousand years now) that the Bible is the only word God has or will ever leave his children. Of course, anyone who has even the smallest desire to learn the history of the Bible soon discovers the absurdity of this orthodoxy (religious councils compiled the Bible, not God).
And so it is with polygamy - a key stumbling block to those intoxicated by orthodoxy. Antagonists of the Church and those seeking an excuse to leave it, commonly cite the early Church’s practice of polygamy as a sign of its alleged falsity. However, the more I study and mature, the more I believe that challenges to orthodoxy are sometimes sure-fire signs of authenticity.
How does any Bible reading Christian, or Jew for that matter, reconcile their repugnance for polygamy with the myriad of scriptures in which God, in times past, has prescribed it for his people? Indeed, the whole house of Israel was brought forth through the four wives of Jacob (Rachel, Leah, Zilpah, & Bilhah) (See Genesis 29-30). How is it that the chosen people of God could be rooted in such an erroneous practice? Furthermore, why would Christ on multiple occasions refer to himself in parables as a polygamist (i.e. parable of ten virgins, as bridegroom of the elect, etc.)? Why doesn’t this offend more people, and how do they reconcile it with their orthodoxy?
But, perhaps they are in good company. After all, when Brigham first heard of the command, he said he would rather go to his grave than have to submit to the practice. Parly P. Pratt and John Taylor also had similar initial reactions.
So, here you have it, the next installment in our effort to discuss the “classics”. The ground rules for this thread will be very open: please feel free to respond by discussing any aspect of the polygamy question/issue.
Even with in our own church it baffles me of the dogma that we have created in two hundred years. i.e. Caffeine being one, and taking the sacrament with only the right hand…And many more.
Back to your post. I think most people justify in there minds that polygamy was part of the “Old Law” and it was just as ok as animal sacrifices.
I wonder some of the actual “rules” on early polygamy. like did they have to have separate houses? Could the women interact.. not in the way Ryan is thinking right now… but like on a social level? When Joseph Smith married that young girl that was already married any one have any back ground on that.. This is a topic that I have a lot of interest in because so many people stereotype us for it.
Comment # 1 left by Eric on February 1st, 2006
mmm… Polygamy….
Just as a point of information, before I get started on my opinion:
The correct term for the practice in the early church is actually Polygyny. Which refers to a plurality of wives. Whereas Polygamy refers to a plurality of spouses… a practice which I belive Mandy firmly supports whilst she rejects polygyny.
Although in pointing this out I should also mention my opinion that common usage defines a word, not Websters dictionary and I think the common usage of polygamy is sufficient for our discussion.
Comment # 2 left by Ryan on February 1st, 2006
Ok let me take a deep breath and try to explain my position in a rational manner. I will preface by stating that I do believe in most of the core values of the church.
1.God promises eternal glory, becoming gods, creating our own kingdoms and of course polygamy (for the men) as rewards for good behavior on earth. I would have to say that I am not motivated by this. Why would I strive for a goal that I am morally opposed too?
2.Polygamy and sex are often used in religions to motivate members. Look at the middle east… they promise virgins to suicide bombers.
3.I often hear from members that women do not hold key positions in the church because women are “sacred” and need to be protected. Personally, I don’t need protecting. I am pretty sure as an Executive Director I could balance the wards bank account or make appointments for the bishop.
4.I challenge you to take a poll within your own ward or your own family. Ask 10 women if they are in favor of polygamy after death. I would bet that at least 8 would say no and then feel guilty because it goes against what we have all been taught from the beginning. I have seen on so many occassions an undercurrent of bitterness in regards to this topic.
I would challenge any of you in a straight forward manner to explain to me why I should strive for a goal I am not in favor of. Because doing so now makes me a hypocrite.
Comment # 3 left by Mandy on February 1st, 2006
I would challenge any of you in a straight forward manner to explain to me why I should strive for a goal I am not in favor of.
First off, I should say that I am not so naive as to suggest that the difficulty in accepting this particular doctrine does not weigh more heavily on the women than it does the men. But I do have to disregard this as a valid challenege to the validity of the doctrine itself. If I didn’t then I would be compelled to disregard any doctrine that a group of people found objectionable.
I have to get back to work but I’ll follow up with more in about an hour…
Comment # 4 left by Ryan on February 1st, 2006
…explain to me why I should strive for a goal I am not in favor of.
I could be wrong here, but I don’t think polygamy is required for a person to be exalted?
Upon reading DC 132, I find it interesting the way the Lord revealed the doctrine of marriage to Joseph. Generally, the section sets out to expound polygamy (see verse 1), but then it goes into an explanation about marriage between one man and one woman. Only after this does the revelation discuss polygamy. Verses 34-38 state:
34 God acommanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.
35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received amany wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
I find verse 36 to be the most interesting! Basically, sometimes we don’t understand God’s ways and the norms of society, and even what God commands sometimes (e.g. “Thou shalt not kill”) goes contrary to his will for certain people at certain times. Another famous example that always comes to mind is Nephi’s slaying of Laban.
Bottom line, I honestly don’t think you should “strive” to live in a polygamous relationship in the eternities, if it is repulsive and appears to be morally objectionable. However, I do think it’s important to realize that our socialization and the norms of our times really do have an affect on our understanding of what we think we should be “morally opposed to”.
For the record, I am not at all motivated by the prospect of having more than one wife in eternity. However, this whole concept of rejecting orthodoxy and coming to grips with what God has authorized in the past is healthy and necessary for a sound understanding and testimony of what is really truth!
Comment # 5 left by Wade on February 1st, 2006
I don’t think that I would worry too much about polygamy in the eternites.
There are plenty of morally objective things that God has commanded his children to do. Stoning women for fornication, killing lambs for nothing other than a sacrifice, attacking cities (Jericho).
Most of our morals are formed by our society. There are plenty societies that find polygamy perfectly acceptable. Most Americans don’t. And that is fine.
I figure that when we get into the eternities, things will not be like they are now. I have a feeling it will be a major learing experience for us. Like when you first figured out how babies were made, or that there was no Santa Clause, only this will be much more revelatory.
Comment # 6 left by Ian on February 1st, 2006
I have a feeling it will be a major learing experience for us.
I like that! If you think about it, accepting current dogma or social norms is precisely what prevents us from knowing God. It will be a learning experience because we will have to “unlearn” a lot of the crap we’ve come to accept as right!
Comment # 7 left by Wade on February 1st, 2006
What I meant by follow up in about an hour” was “tomorrow”
I think Wade said it pretty well for me. Especially the concept that no one said you had to be a polygamist to get into the celestial kingdom. Unless there’s a quote about it floating around I haven’t heard of course, which is altogether likely.
Comment # 8 left by Ryan on February 2nd, 2006
To me it doesn’t even make sense in the overall plan of salvation to say that to make it to the Celestial Kingdom that you have to be polygamist.
At the same time, when we pass on, perhaps we will come around to the idea and we won’t have a problem with it.
Comment # 9 left by Ian on February 2nd, 2006
Well to start let me tell you that don’t know… Mandy is my wife. So as you can tell I am never having another wife… ever… never ever. Anyway the thing that gets me about people and polygamy is that societies objection to polygamy is such a recent development in the grand scheme of things. Mankind (I say this because I am sure “MAN” had more to do with this than woman) has had multiple wives since the begining of time. It is only in the last couple hundred years that society has decided that this is completely wrong. Humans are in the minority if you look at the animal kingdom when it comes to having multiple spouses. I am not so sure that it is wrong if you look at it purely from a survival standpoint for mankind. There are more women than men on the planet. it makes survival sense for procreation. So from that stand point it totally makes sense. The problem is that women are emotional creatures and think that something is wrong with them if you want to have more than one wife. To quote an old friend of mine “Sometimes I am in the mood for steak and sometimes I am in the mood for lobster. That doesn’t mean that I like one more than the other in fact I love both. Then sometimes I am in the mood for both at the same time.” Now I am sure there has to be some rule against that in the kingdom of heaven but I think that gets my point across… Now… I duck…
Comment # 10 left by My Dominion on February 2nd, 2006
I think the difference, dominion, is that having lobster and steak on your own, would be frowned upon. Recieving both lobster and steak from the Lord is ok.
Comment # 11 left by Ian on February 3rd, 2006
Yes, Dominion. You do love Lobster and Steak but don’t forget who has to slave over a stove to prepare it for you.
Duck!
Comment # 12 left by Mandy on February 3rd, 2006
Ooo! Sounds like My Dominion is having a little shake up in his domain?
Comment # 13 left by Wade on February 3rd, 2006
Mandy said:
Polygamy and sex are often used in religions to motivate members.
I don’t necessarily disagree with this assertion. However, I strongly disagree that this was the purpose of its institution among founding members of the Church. The reaction of those to whom Joseph first revealed the doctrine to is in direct contradiction to this assertion.
For example, both Young and Taylor (the second and third Presidents of the Church) were strongly repulsed by the idea. Furthermore, Elder Parley Pratt (a founding member of the 12) said the revelation came as a tremendous shock and test of his loyalty and faith.
Fair (foundation for appologetic information and research) has recently published a paper that specifically refutes the idea that polygamy was instituted to satisfy the early brethrens’ sexual appetites. The research scholarship, reasoning, and research in this paper is very serious and enlightening!
Comment # 14 left by Wade on February 3rd, 2006
The FAIR article that I have cited gives the sources of both Young’s and Taylor’s initial reactions to the doctrine.
Comment # 15 left by Wade on February 3rd, 2006
Mandy wrote:
I often hear from members that women do not hold key positions in the church because women are “sacred” and need to be protected.
That’s interesting because I’ve never heard that explanation. There are some interesting posts/discussions going on about women and leadership in the Church over at Times & Seasons, here, and here.
Comment # 16 left by Wade on February 3rd, 2006
I think I actually have something to add to this. When Wade quoted
36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.
Just makes sense that one needs to be “willing” to do it, but may not have to. We are to be humble, teachable, and submissive to God. Whether you have to be part of it or not I don’t think is what matters. Its whether or not if God The Almighty, The Father of your sprit tells you to do something and you say yes.
Comment # 17 left by Eric on February 3rd, 2006