Comments on: My Perspective on Polygamy

By: Bishop Rick

Bishop Rick — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:36:09 +0000

David T,

Why can’t you be faithful AND reject things that don’t make sense?
Its not a sin to have an opinion.

By: David T

David T — Tue, 22 Mar 2011 21:12:46 +0000

Ha ha, make every revelation true? Likes that’s some great burden? Funny stuff.

The interesting thing about this site and all of these posts is the assumption that everything will make sense and be perfectly reasonable and comfortable. While I find the discussions interesting and the additional information very informative, there is still the need to take things on faith. I am convinced certain things can only be taken on faith on purpose, set up just that way for a reason. There are things, I believe, that we answer “I don’t know” and that does something for us, empowers us in a way we don’t now comprehend. And while that seems completely crazy to someone who needs everything laid out, who would be a more faithful servant?

If indeed God’s ways are not man’s ways, then there will be things we don’t understand and sometimes that’s the answer. I don’t think, though, that we should write that principle off or not believe it, even if it doesn’t make perfect sense. Polygamy doesn’t always make sense. I will give you that. Joseph, therefore, received an incorrect revelation? Well, that’s a little too far. And we don’t have all the information, after all.

For example: polygamy, I believe, was instrumental in separating the church from what was happening (an increase in popularity and growing respect, an “alignment” if you will with the ways of the world) and nothing could have separated us better, if indeed that needed to happen, than the polygamy issue. Whether or not this was indeed part of the reason, I just don’t know. But I’m okay with that. I think rejecting things we don’t understand will have a snowball effect and eventually result in at least a partial apostasy. I just don’t think we’re in a position to tell God he has a faithful follower granted everything makes perfect sense Otherwise, we’ll be mostly faithful, most of the time . . .

By: Tara O

Tara O — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 21:03:01 +0000

Thank you. Finally someone who believes the “gospel” but doesn’t have to contort that belief to make every “revelation” true.

By: Mormon Heretic » Introduction to “More Wives Than One” by Kathryn Daynes

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:44:49 +0000

[...] may remember my earlier post outlining my perspective on Polygamy, as well as Bushman’s perspective. I must say that I was very uncomfortable [...]

By: Mormon Heretic » Balaam: Prophet, Wicked One, Both, Neither?

Mormon Heretic » Balaam: Prophet, Wicked One, Both, Neither? — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:28:19 +0000

[...] one of my requests! Tara and I have been discussing several topics, such as the Priesthood Ban, Polygamy, and Abraham, and the story of Balaam always seems to come up. She takes the position that Balaam [...]

By: Establishing the tribes of Israel: the real reason for plural marriage « LDS Anarchy

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:48:54 +0000

[...] I would check out what was new. That’s when I saw he had two recent posts on polygamy. (See My perspective on polygamy—he also has the same post at Mormon Matters—and Bushman’s Perspective on Polygamy, Alger [...]

By: MH

MH — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:24:12 +0000

“Laws and covenants don’t change, but commandments do, as I stated previously.”

Ok, I think some definitions are in order. Tara, what are your specific distinctions between laws, covenants, and commandments?

By: Bishop Rick

Bishop Rick — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:00:01 +0000

Brigham Young commissioned Orson Pratt to write a paper on Celestial Marriage and upon completion to deliver it in discourse form to the church in the Tabernacle. This discourse is recorded in the Journal of Discourse volume 1 pg. 53. In his opening sentence, he equates the topic of Celestial Marriage to Plurality of Wives.

Brigham Young references this discourse in talks of his own, reiterating what Pratt stated. I have also read a talk by John Taylor (in the JoD) who unequivocally states that the New and Everlasting Covenent is Plurality of wives. I can’t remember the location of that one, but will look it up and post when I find it.

MH is absolutely correct that the early church did not separate Celestial Marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant) and Plural Marriage.

Tara: I’m sorry, but polygamy was not merely a temporary commandment as you state. It was the New and EVERLASTING COVENANT.

Big difference.

By: Mormon Heretic

Mormon Heretic — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:36:41 +0000

Tara seems to be making separating plural marriage from the New and Everlasting Covenant in this comment. It seems to me she is engaging in an argument of semantics. It is absolutely clear to me that prophets Joseph Smith until Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto, clearly viewed these things as the same. Since then, perhaps a distinction could be made between the two, but clearly there was no separation prior to Woodruff. In fact, some people have believed Celestial (or plural) marriage was so central to salvation, that they have continued the practice. The Allred group, the LeBaron Group, and even some apostles continued to perform polygamist marriages, that a second Manifesto happened in 1904. At least 2 apostles resigned (Matthew Cowley's resignation led to the appointment of David O McKay as a new apostle.) Clearly Matthew Cowley did not support Woodruff's revelation banning polygamy in 1890.

By: Bushman’s Take on Polygamy at Mormon Matters

Bushman’s Take on Polygamy at Mormon Matters — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:35:20 +0000

[...] few weeks ago, here at Mormon Matters, I posted on My Perspective on Polygamy (with a longer version found on my blog.) I hinted that I wanted to talk about it some more, and [...]