While I don’t tend to agree with Harmston very often, he is right about society being more permissive of non-traditional families. Outside of the mountain west people are even more permissive of polygamist, with the possible exception of Texas. In the state I live, plural marriage is legal as long as you don’t apply for multiple marriage licenses. They don’t recognize common law marriage, so they view it like a man with two girlfriends, which is perfectly legal in most places.

One last thing, it’s not me that makes the distinction between being excommunicated for immoral behavior or apostasy. It is the Church that makes that distinction. Apostates are treated differently from all others who leave the Church.

Thank you for being willing to have this conversation, and for allowing me to share a different perspective. I truly respect that. While I normally don’t spend this much time on the internet, I’ve been sick for the last week, I’ve really enjoyed my time here. Now, unfortunately, I must make up for a lost week worth of work. You can always reach me by putting a dot between my first and last name at yahoo dot com.

Later!

Regarding the current practice of polygamy, Kathryn Daynes quotes James Harmston, a currently practicing polygamist (and founder of the TLC church.) Harmston was asked why he wasn’t prosecuted for polygamy when it is against the state constitution in Utah. “In today’s society…we find that liberal government is far more permissive of non-traditional families.” (See page 2 of “More Wives than One”.)

Brent, I agree with your point that “It’s important that we learn the difference between eternal principles and special works. That’s up to the individual to learn on their own.”

I think this sums up traditional vs fundamentalist perspectives on polygamy, but we disagree as to definitions of eternal principles and special works.

If a homosexual is excommunicated then they are generally removed for immoral behavior, which from what I understand, is also the same charge that most heterosexuals are excommunicated on.

If a polygamist is excommunicated then they are charged with apostasy. This is a special charge that brings about special treatment. I could talk about men loosing their families, businesses being destroyed, harassment from Mormons in law enforcement and CPS, but all those stories are personal, and wouldn’t necessarily reflect the intent of higher leadership in the Church. A stake president telling a wife that if she doesn’t leave her husband then she will loose her salvation and her children for eternity, doesn’t mean that higher leadership is directly involved in that. Although, that argument could be made. Fundamentalist all know Gov. Pyle, and his testimony of involvement by the President of the Church in the Shortcreek raids back in the 50’s.

I think a better example would be that my children, if I was excommunicated for homosexual behavior, could still get into BYU without that even being a factor, as long as they are in good standing in the Church. The child of a fundamentalist, on the other hand, would need to get First Presidency approval, and be subject to a test oath, in order to go to BYU. Just as they would need first presidency approval for baptism.

“Are you affiliated with a church or other religious group that advocates the current practice of plural marriage?” (BYU application)

At one point they had what was required if the applicant answered “yes”, but they’ve since removed that. Maybe I’ll give B.Y.U. a call this week and see if they’d be kind enough to give me what I should have saved when I had the chance.

I agree with you that polygamist and homosexuals have become strange bedfellows in the marriage debate. As they say, the enemy to my enemy is my friend. Frankly, I’d be happy to have what the homosexuals have today. At least they no longer have to worry about going to prison for their lifestyle. I don’t give a crap if the state recognizes my religious covenants, as they should have no authority in religious institutions like marriage. I just don’t to fear prison time for living my religion. While President Hinckley didn’t seem to have a problem with religious covenants being illegal, I do.

As far as age of consent laws go, my views are in harmony with the laws of most nations in the world. If the parents don’t have a problem with their teen getting married then neither do I. The statistics are clear. The vast majority of teens have sex. I think that they should have the option of doing so while being married, along as they have parental consent. I’m strongly against anyone infringing upon the agency of another. Marriage and sex should never be forced, or coerced in any way.

Ah, if only we had all the records available to the Church in the days of Peter. Thankfully, the Lord can reiterate what was once lost. It’s important that we learn the difference between eternal principles and special works. That’s up to the individual to learn on their own. We also don’t know what was given to people with the practice of plural marriage was still underground. I don’t think that we can say Joseph would have refused to show the revelation if asked by someone that was being taught about plural marriage. I do know that he encouraged others to get the revelation for themselves, and not just take his word for it. I can get you testimony of that fact, but right now, I’m out of time.

Later!

“If a revelation applies to me, then shouldn’t I be able to read it?”

I remind you that the polygamy revelation may have been received as early as 1831 (according to the header of D&C 132), yet it wasn’t formally published until 1852. I don’t believe it was written down until about 1844 (I could be off a year or two), yet Joseph told people that they were bound by it without it being written down. It was only after Hyrum’s urging that Joseph wrote it down in order to convince Emma, and then it seems to imply that Emma had been offered to marry another man in addition to Joseph. (See my post at Mormon Matters. Comments #9 and #18 start the discussion of polyandry possibly being acceptable.)

No, actually I think they are on par with each other.

There is no quicker way out of the Church than to advocate for the principle of plural marriage, whether you are actually living the principle or not.

Tell that to the recent list of bloggers who have been excommunicated for homosexuality. I don’t follow the blogs, but I’m aware of a few, and they’re not that hard to find.

President Hinckley professed a love of homosexuals, but polygamist are just criminals, and according to newspaper articles, abusers of children.

Ok, I think there is a bit of hyperbole in this statement. I believe Pres Hinckley was referring to FLDS who were marrying teen girls (as young as 14) to older men. From a legal point of view, a 14-year old does not have ability to consent, so it is abusing children. Do you view marriages between older men and 14-year old girls as acceptable? Brigham Young said it was ok for brothers and sisters to marry, because Adam and Eve’s children married each other. Do you believe that is ok too?

Frankly, I think the church tolerates, (almost embraces) the idea that polygamy was an important principle, and most active Mormons believe it will come back in the “restitution of all things” as mentioned in the prophecy. In the comments on my perspective on polygamy, Tara seemed to believe there was nothing wrong with past practices of polygamy, and seemed to be supportive of polygamy if the prophet if it ever brings it back. In some ways, she is more sympathetic to your arguments than I am, and I don’t see her sent out of the church. She’s as TBM as they come.

The problem arises in the church not if someone has beliefs or supports polygamy or homosexuality, it is more if they openly advocate any of these positions. That will get you excommunicated either way. Pres Hinckley loves polygamists too, but just as he can’t condone open homosexuality in the church, he can’t condone open polygamy in the church either. I think this is a consistent position, and I don’t see a problem here. I think he would welcome a polygamy believer in the church, as well as a homosexual, so long as neither engages in practices or openly advocates these positions the church opposes.

I remember an interview with a congressman a few years ago when gay marriage first became a hot-button issue, and he said something to the effect of “if we approve gay marriage, then it will open up the legality of polygamy too.” It seems to me that advocates of gay marriage and polygamy are strange bedfellows in this attempt to redefine marriage.

“I tend to put my faith in those prophets whose revelations I’ve actually been able to read for myself.”

Now this seems like an odd statement, and brings up my kosher argument as well. Have you actually read Peter’s revelation removing the kosher practice, or have you merely read the narrative of Peter describing the revelation in the Book of Acts?

We could certainly put Peter’s words in competition with Moses’ words and say, “They can’t both be right.” As such, I don’t see any material difference between Peter’s narrative and Pres Woodruff’s. So by that logic, we should go back to kosher, which is pretty well documented in Deuteronomy, yet Peter’s vision isn’t documented except in vague terms.

“What is the Church’s position on polygamy?

We are faced these days with many newspaper articles on this subject. This has arisen out of a case of alleged child abuse on the part of some of those practicing plural marriage.

I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12). One cannot obey the law and disobey the law at the same time.

There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.

What is your Church’s attitude toward homosexuality?

In the first place, we believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.

We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families.” (“What Are People Asking about Us?,” Ensign, Nov 1998, 70)

Polygamy is viewed in the Church today as being a greater evil than homosexuality. There is no quicker way out of the Church than to advocate for the principle of plural marriage, whether you are actually living the principle or not. President Hinckley professed a love of homosexuals, but polygamist are just criminals, and according to newspaper articles, abusers of children.

Prophet to homosexual: “We love you!” Prophet to polygamist: “You’re not welcome in this Church. Get out!”

For some reason President Hinckley’s sermon reminded me of this passage of Isaiah. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter…Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!”

As far as his other comments go, I’m more interested to hear what our Father in Heaven, as well as His host of polygamist servants, thought when they found out their eternal marriages where no longer doctrinal and in violation of the law. Do you think any of them would abide in a Church that didn’t welcome their wives?

We have a dilemma in Mormonism today. On one had you have the Prophet John Taylor saying:

“What would be necessary to bring about the results nearest the hearts
of the opponents of Mormonism? Simply to renounce, abrogate, or apostatize
from the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage in its fulness. Were the
Church to do that as an entirety, God would reject the Saints as a body. The
authority of the Priesthood would be withdrawn with its gifts and powers and
there would be no more heavenly recognition of the administrations. The
heavens would permanently withdraw themselves, and the Lord would raise up
another people of greater valor and stability, for his work must, according to
his unalterable decrees, go forward; for the time of the second coming of the
Savior is near, even at the doors.” (John Taylor, Des. News, April 23, 1885)

On the other hand you have Gordon B. Hinckley saying:

“I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. …it is now against the law of God.”

They can’t both be right. I tend to put my faith in those prophets whose revelations I’ve actually been able to read for myself. Revelations directly from the Lord. I don’t buy this idea that a prophet can receive a revelation that I’m bound by, but I’m not allowed to read for myself. That I just have to trust in the arm of flesh to relay what the revelation said. If a revelation applies to me, then shouldn’t I be able to read it?

I want to see the revelation in which God said plural marriage is not doctrinal and in violation of Celestial law. I’ve never seen such a revelation, yet I’ve seen numerous revelations to the contrary.

What do you make of Pres Hinckley’s statement below?

More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.

The full statement is found on the LDS church website.

I’m sure you’re familiar with the famous quote Pres Hinckley made on the “Larry King Show” when he said “I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. I know I come down harsher on polygamy than most church members, but I also do not believe it is doctrinal.

There’s also this quote from the LDS church website where Pres Hinckley relates a question from Dan Rather of the TV show, “60 Minutes”, which seems to imply that this “advice” was more than advice, but “inspired guidance.”

Question: “As you know, some skeptics say that major changes in Church policy have come from political pressures, not necessarily as revelations from God. For example, the business of ending polygamy, say the skeptics, wasn’t because it was revelation but because Utah wanted to become a state.”

Response: “One of the purposes of a prophet is to seek the wisdom and the will of the Lord and to teach his people accordingly. It was the case with Moses when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt. It was the case for the Old Testament prophets when people were faced with oppression and trouble and difficulty. That is the purpose of a prophet, to give answers to people for the dilemmas in which they find themselves. That is what happens. That is what we see happen. Is it a matter of expediency, political expediency? No! Inspired guidance? Yes!”

Finally, you are perfectly welcome to believe that the concept of kosher is not an eternal principle (I agree with you), but I want to point out that Jews and Muslims today believe kosher is an eternal principle, and still do not eat pork today. As such, it seems that your response to polygamy as a fundamentalist Mormon is really no different than an Orthodox Jew or Muslim concerning the kosher laws. They believe kosher is an eternal principle, just as you believe polygamy is an eternal principle. Of course, I don’t believe either is an eternal principle.

Thank you for allowing my perspective to be shared. I’ve been banned by many LDS blogs for sharing the very things I’ve posted here. Some are scared by differing perspectives, which is something I find to be very limiting. Just because I don’t agree with those I’m discussing things with doesn’t mean that I can’t gain valuable knowledge from what they say. We need more perspective in the Church, not less.

MH: “As you know, I’ve been reading Kathryn Daynes book, and she has several conflicting quotes from church leaders about whether monogamists were eligible for Celestial Glory. I love her book, and have about 4 ideas for posts right now. Perhaps you can check back when I post on a few more topics from her book, and we can talk about the topic of early church leader quotes in the future. You definitely have some I am not aware of.”

No problem. I’ll look forward to your future post, and I’m sure I’ll have some more quotes to add.

MH: “So, it seems to me you believe the current state of the LDS church is in essentially the same state of the early Christian church after the death of the apostles. It seems to me you believe that Woodruff and company should have been willing to suffer the same fate as Peter and Paul. I get your point about apostasy being not that much different than extinction, but as I look at biblical polygamy, it doesn’t strike me as a principle that early Jews and Christians felt was worth dying for.”

In the days of the early Jews and Christians polygamy wasn’t something that would have gotten you killed. Polygamy being evil is a relatively more modern concept.

Obviously there are varying levels of apostasy. From my perspective, the Church today is in a state of apostasy, but the Church still offers knowledge and blessings that can’t be obtained elsewhere in Christianity. You can still find the path to exaltation within the Church, however that path may eventually get you excommunicated. From my perspective, it’s not obedience to the Church that is required, but obedience to the laws of God, so excommunication isn’t that big of a deal.

MH: I guess it seems to me an apostate church is better than a dead church. For example, the Gnostics are now extinct, but I believe that they had some truths that were rejected by the Catholic Church (especially Deification, which I find similar to Exaltation–see this post comparing the two if you’re interested.) Gnostics had some definite falsehoods too, as well as the Catholic Church. Is the world better because the Gnostics were exterminated and the Catholic Church wasn’t? Personally, I think the world would have been better with the Gnostics still here–while we don’t believe many Gnostic teachings, certainly they indirectly influenced the Orthodox Church.

The pattern that I’ve seen is that the more gospel principles you reject, the better your standing with worldly authorities. If the Gnostics would have compromised more of their true principles then the greater the chance they would have still been around today.

MH: “I want to turn back to the Peter/Woodruff parallel. I was surprised to hear that you support prophets after Woodruff as well. Is there a point in time where you think LDS prophets went astray, or do you continue to support most things right up through Pres Monson? Also, do you believe that polygamy is not required for the general membership of the church, but is to be practiced only by “the elect” in this day and age?”

When Heber J. Grant started making war with those who continued to live the fullness of the gospel is when I think apostasy really set in with the leadership. That doesn’t mean that the leadership never did anything good, or that there weren’t righteous men and women still in the Church. It just means that as an institution, the Church lost favor with God. On the flip side, they gained favor with the world, as Heber J. Grant testified to in General Conference.

“I am thankful that wherever I have traveled during the past six months
I have found a feeling of respect, a feeling of love in the hearts of many for
the Latter-day Saints, in the hearts of those not of our faith. I heard many
very splendid compliments while in Washington by members of the president’s
cabinet, by senators and representatives, and by officials of the government
in the Federal Reserve banking departments, and in others, wherever I went,
and with all the people that I met, bankers in New York, Chicago, San
Francisco, and other cities, I heard good things said of the Latter-day
Saints; we are coming into our own, so to speak.” (Heber J. Grant, Conf.
Rept., April 4, 1920, p. 12)

MH: If we view polygamy and kosher in similar terms, then Joseph Smith and Christ were both polygamy/kosher believers. Along comes Woodruff and Peter that change the law, causing much consternation among believers. If a prophet such as Woodruff/Peter says essentially that we shouldn’t live polygamy/kosher, then it seems to me that if we accept them as prophets, then we should accept these revelations. To believe that polygamy/kosher should continue to be practiced seems to put Fundamentalists in the same category with Zealots in New Testament times, who continue to believe polgamy/kosher should be practiced, despite prophetic admonitions to the contrary. Do you understand my point? (You don’t have to agree, and I don’t expect you to, but I would like to hear why you think this parallel might not be accurate/appropriate.)

The difference in the dietary law and the law of plural marriage is that one is an eternal principle and one is not, as evidenced by what Joseph taught on the law of Moses (posted earlier), and what he taught on plural marriage (posted below).

“The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and stengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on Celestial and plural marriage and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people, would be damned and cut off from this time hence forth. And they say if I do so, they will kill me. O, what shall I do? If I do not practice it, I shall be damned with my people. If I do teach it, and practice it, and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But we have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.” (The “Contributor’” 5:259)