Surprised this apologetic view of polygamy hasn't come up here yet

[GrizzledVeteran]

I have to admit, part of me laughs at the idea of polygamy becoming constitutionally protected and the church reinstating it. Call it black humor, I guess. What a horrifying mess that would be. IMO, it would be the end of the church as we know it.

The church could use it to push everyone that's already half the way out the door the rest of the way out and spare the rest of us the trouble.

[CardiacCoug]

The church could use it to push everyone that's already half the way out the door the rest of the way out and spare the rest of us the trouble.

Nice. So you would start practicing polygamy next week if Church leaders asked you to and you would be glad to get rid of anybody who wouldn't go along with polygamy? That's what you're saying?

I hope it is because we need more people like you on this board.

[UtahDan]

So her point is that God requires monogamy except for when He doesn't? That most of the time the law is A and sometimes it is B? Let's assume that is true, what does that get you? I truly don't understand. Is it that even though God is down with infanticide and adultery some of the time, its okay because He isn't most of the time?

This is like the argument "well most people didn't actually practice it." Even if it is true, so what? It is saying "sure it's bad, but on a smaller scale than you think."

[UtahDan]

The church could use it to push everyone that's already half the way out the door the rest of the way out and spare the rest of us the trouble.

[Pheidippides]

. (Yes, I know plural marriages continued until 1904 or so, but I understand those were performed "on the down-low.")

I think that depends on what you mean by "on the down low". If you mean "performed by apostles" then you are correct. My reading is that the first manifesto had all the actual effect of a butterfly's wings in Singapore. Part of that may well have been the secretive wink-wink nature of the practice by that point - BCC's series on correlation is very instructive on this point.

I'm sure Elder Eyring would be surprised to learn that his grandfather's post-manifesto plural marriage was outside of Church sanction. Seems odd since he kept going to the regular old Mormon Church until he died in 1957.

I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the bit that there were polygamists in our midst until well into the middle part of the 20th century. It's not as much of an ancient past as we'd like to believe, although the actual practice of performing plural marriages ended much earlier of course.

I have to admit, part of me laughs at the idea of polygamy becoming constitutionally protected and the church reinstating it. Call it black humor, I guess. What a horrifying mess that would be. IMO, it would be the end of the church as we know it.

Agreed completely. Most members can deal with polygamy much like Cardiac did in his class: we don't know why, we don't have to deal with it now. You bring that back and the church falls apart. Frankly, I think there will be plenty of problems even if the church doesn't reinstate it - it would not surprise me if a lot of the hardliners take a SCOTUS decision allowing it, look at that, look at the stated reasons for discontinuing polygamy in the WW manifesto (temples in hands of gov't, etc.) and say, "Okay, now what's stopping us?"

So her point is that God requires monogamy except for when He doesn't? That most of the time the law is A and sometimes it is B? Let's assume that is true, what does that get you? I truly don't understand. Is it that even though God is down with infanticide and adultery some of the time, its okay because He isn't most of the time?

This is like the argument "well most people didn't actually practice it." Even if it is true, so what? It is saying "sure it's bad, but on a smaller scale than you think."

This is where I get lost in the apologetic arguments. I am completely cool with the, "hey, JS was pervy, tried to cover his sins, this got out of control, but the fundamental other stuff we believe in is good" line. I can take that, I can accept it, it doesn't make me rethink my church participation (it's actually what I would claim to believe if you won't let me get away with "I dunno."). And I really do believe that people believed in the principle in the mid-to-late 1800s. No doubt about that to me - these weren't just pervy guys doing their thing.

I can even get behind the Jacob permitted polygamy concept. If I will raise seed unto me I will command bit. Hey, that makes sense. You're trying to increase population of a religious group, I can see that as working out in certain scenarios given biological reproduction ratio requirements. Assuming not enough men and all of that. So in the hypothetical abstract (and we're talking about nuclear holocaust type scenarios now), I can see that making a whole lot of sense. If the entire world except one guy and four women get nuked, polyg away. I can also extend that argument to an Abraham type of situation where the religion is literally one guy in that sort of social structure and stuff. Maybe. Maybe (if you're going to take the BOM as literal) that's what Jacob was thinking about when he's saying don't do this. Maybe he's saying "hey, you can't do this, and don't try using Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as an excuse." So I guess I can go along with the "mostly A, occasionally B" part.

But that wasn't what happened - if anything, the Jacob sermon stands diametrically opposed to the way things were practiced. So any apologetic argument that talks about scope of practice is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, at least to the extent the instruction is coming from the top of the church.

[Viking]

Puhleaz. Belief cannot be defended.

[jay santos]

I couldn't get past his second sentence:

(polygamy not practiced for 120 years)

I don't see what the big deal is. Is it a big distinction to say:

Polygamy was declared to be against church policy 120 years ago, but it took a generation or two to completely go away.

I just don't get the critical argument on this one.

[CardiacCoug]

(polygamy not practiced for 120 years)

I don't see what the big deal is. Is it a big distinction to say:

Polygamy was declared to be against church policy 120 years ago, but it took a generation or two to completely go away.

I just don't get the critical argument on this one.

I guess it's a small point -- some of us are probably hypersensitive here because there is so much inaccuracy/dishonesty coming through official channels of the LDS Church when it comes to polygamy.

But the point is that everybody who knows anything about LDS polygamy knows there were hundreds of sanctioned plural marriages post-manifesto.

I have to conclude that the guy either doesn't know much about the topic or is purposefully being deceptive.

I don't think precision here is too much to ask for. This writer hasn't heard of the 1904 "second manifesto"? Why does he think that was necessary?

[scottie]

(polygamy not practiced for 120 years)

I don't see what the big deal is. Is it a big distinction to say:

Polygamy was declared to be against church policy 120 years ago, but it took a generation or two to completely go away.

I just don't get the critical argument on this one.

I guess I don't get what you or LA Ute don't get about misinformation. "The Mormon Church has not practiced plural marriage for more than 120 years" is false.

[scottie]

I guess it's a small point -- some of us are probably hypersensitive here because there is so much inaccuracy/dishonesty coming through official channels of the LDS Church when it comes to polygamy.

But the point is that everybody who knows anything about LDS polygamy knows there were hundreds of sanctioned plural marriages post-manifesto.

I have to conclude that the guy either doesn't know much about the topic or is purposefully being deceptive.

I don't think precision here is too much to ask for. This writer hasn't heard of the 1904 "second manifesto"? Why does he think that was necessary?

Cardiac says it better than me.

[SoonerCoug]

KSL and the Deseret News are to Mormonism what Komsomolskaya Pravda was to Communism. It's very difficult to take them seriously when it comes to anything even remotely related to Mormonism.

[LA Ute]

What if Valerie Hudson is right? Just asking.

[Pheidippides]

What if Valerie Hudson is right? Just asking.

She's not. Either she's wrong or Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor (among others) were wrong. And they can't be wrong if you are an orthodox believer. I can find the quotes with a bit of searching, but there is no ambiguity about them.

I'm intentionally painting a black and white picture here to underscore the difficulty I have with her argument and the cognitive dissonance this raises upon so much as a cursory reading into contemporary statements. Obviously you can find any number of outs (JS got the reasoning wrong, JS got the practice wrong, etc.) but her argument simply doesn't match with what the first three presidents of the church said multiple times. It's clever but it doesn't deal with, is ignorant of, or willfully disregards the stated eternal nature and importance of the practice.

[pellegrino]

I can even get behind the Jacob permitted polygamy concept. If I will raise seed unto me I will command bit. Hey, that makes sense. You're trying to increase population of a religious group, I can see that as working out in certain scenarios given biological reproduction ratio requirements. Assuming not enough men and all of that. So in the hypothetical abstract (and we're talking about nuclear holocaust type scenarios now), I can see that making a whole lot of sense. If the entire world except one guy and four women get nuked, polyg away. I can also extend that argument to an Abraham type of situation where the religion is literally one guy in that sort of social structure and stuff. Maybe. Maybe (if you're going to take the BOM as literal) that's what Jacob was thinking about when he's saying don't do this. Maybe he's saying "hey, you can't do this, and don't try using Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as an excuse." So I guess I can go along with the "mostly A, occasionally B" part.

But that wasn't what happened - if anything, the Jacob sermon stands diametrically opposed to the way things were practiced. So any apologetic argument that talks about scope of practice is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, at least to the extent the instruction is coming from the top of the church.

this is why I think the woman is nuts and I can't believe she, a professional academic, got up there and presented something in a public forum that is so riddled with holes in textual analysis, historical context and just plain, basic logic. It's mind-boggling.

[Jeff Lebowski]

this is why I think the woman is nuts and I can't believe she, a professional academic, got up there and presented something in a public forum that is so riddled with holes in textual analysis, historical context and just plain, basic logic. It's mind-boggling.

Did you notice that she taking an endowed chair at texas a&m? (snicker)