u/Thorough_8

TLDR - The LDS church’s current position is that plural marriage is not required for exaltation, but numerous 19th century prophets—including Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith, and Heber C. Kimball—explicitly taught that polygamy was a divine commandment necessary for the highest level of exaltation and that rejecting it could lead to damnation. This raises a fundamental question about prophetic authority: If prophets can teach supposedly eternal truths that later prophets reject, how can members trust that today’s teachings will remain true tomorrow?

The Gospel Topics Essays state the following about plural marriage being a requirement for exaltation:

>Does the Church teach that plural marriage is required for exaltation?

>No. No scripture or revelation teaches that plural marriage is a requirement for exaltation nor has this been an established doctrine of the Church. In the 19th century, some Church leaders taught this idea. Since that time, however, the consistent, unanimous teaching of Church leaders is that only monogamous temple marriage is necessary for exaltation. They have also emphasized that such a marriage will eventually be available to all who worthily seek it.

This is a wishy-washy response to the question because it: (1) offers a firm denial that no scripture, revelation, or doctrine supports polygamy for exaltation; while (2) simultaneously admitting that "some church leaders taught this idea." As I have come to expect, the essay does not offer or cite any of the teachings it refutes, so I had to do my due diligence to find some of the teachings myself.

>Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it.

Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 25, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878 (emphasis added)

>The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866 (emphasis added).

>My son John. You have asked me concerning the New & eve<r>lasting covenant how far it is binding upon my people. Thus saith the Lord all commandments that I give must <be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name> unless they are revoked by my or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant; for I the Lord am everlasting my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand for ever. & have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been neglient in the observance of my law & the keeping of my commandment and yet have I borne with them these many years & this because of their weakness because of the perlious times & furthermore, it is more pleasing to <me> that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters. Nevertheless I the Lord do not change & my word & my covenants & my law do not. & as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph all those who would enter into my glory must & shall obey my law & have I not commandment men that if they were Abraham's seed & would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting & those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so amen.

1886 Revelation by John Taylor (this was quietly and recently added to the church website without official acknowledgement) (emphasis added). Transcript here.

>Patriachal marriage involves conditions, responsibilities and obligations which do not exist in monogamy, and there are blessings attached to the faithful observance of that law, if viewed only upon natural principles, which must so far exceed those of monogamy as the conditions responsibilities and power of increase are greater. This is my view and testimony in relation to this matter. I believe it is a doctrine that should be taught and understood...

>Man may receive great reward, exaltation and glory by entering into the bond of the new and everlasting covenant, if he continue faithful according to his knowledge, but he cannot receive the fullness of the blessings unless he fulfills the law, any more than he can claim the gift of the Holy Ghost after he is baptized without the laying on of hands by the proper authority, or the remission of sins without baptism, though he may repent in sack-cloth and ashes...

>It is a glorious privilege to be permitted to go into a Temple of God to be united as man and wife in the bonds of holy wedlock for time and all eternity by the Authority of the Holy Priesthood, which is the power of God, for they who are thus joined together “no man can put asunder,” for God hath joined them. It is an additional privilege for that same man and wife to re-enter the Temple of God to receive another wife in like manner if they are worthy. But if he remain faithful with only the one wife, observing the conditions of so much of the law as pertains to the eternity of the marriage covenant, he will receive his reward, but the benefits, blessings and power appertaining to the second or more faithful and fuller observance of the law, he never will receive, for he cannot.

Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 30, July 7, 1878, Joseph F. Smith (emphasis added)

>Some quietly listen to those who speak against the Lord's servants, against his anointed, against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny “Mormonism,” and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for? It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family. He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out by his people.

Journal of Discourses, October 12, 1856, Heber C. Kimball (emphasis added).

Plurality of wives is not designed to afflict you nor me, but is purposed for our exaltation in the kingdoms of God. If any man had asked me what was my choice when Joseph revealed that doctrine, provided that it would not diminish my glory, I would have said, "Let me have but one wife;" not because it is not a great comfort to me to have children, but if I have not children I know them not...

Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.

But the Saints who live their religion will be exalted, for they never will deny any revelation which the Lord has given or may give, though, when there is a doctrine coming to them which they cannot comprehend fully, they may be found saying, "The Lord sendeth this unto me, and I pray that He will save and preserve me from denying anything which proceedeth from Him, and give me patience to wait until I can understand it for myself."

Journal of Discourses, July 14, 1855, Brigham Young (emphasis added)

>I speak of plurality of wives as one of the most holy principles that God ever revealed to man, and all those who exercise an influence against it, unto whom it is taught, man or woman will be damned, and they and all who will be influenced by them, will suffer the buffetings of Satan in the flesh; for the curse of God will be upon them, and poverty, and distress, and vexation of spirit will be their portion; while those who honor this and every sacred institution of heaven will shine forth as the stars in the firmament of heaven, and of the increase of their kingdom and glory there shall be no end.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.211, Heber C. Kimball, April 4, 1866 (emphasis added).

>Now, in relation to the position that we occupy concerning plurality, or, as it is termed, polygamy it differs from that of others. I have noticed the usage of several nations regarding marriage; but, as I have said, we are not indebted to any of them for our religion, nor for our ideas of marriage, they came from God. Where did this commandment come from in relation to polygamy? It also came from God. It was a revelation given unto Joseph Smith from God, and was made binding upon His servants. When this system was first introduced among this people, it was one of the greatest crosses that ever was taken up by any set of men since the world stood. Joseph Smith told others; he told me, and I can bear witness of it, "that if this principle was not introduced, this Church and kingdom could not proceed." When this commandment was given, it was so far religious, and so far binding upon the Elders of this Church that it was told them if they were not prepared to enter into it, and to stem the torrent of opposition that would come in consequence of it, the keys of the kingdom would be taken from them. When I see any of our people, men or women, opposing a principle of this kind, I have years ago set them down as on the high road to apostacy, and I do to-day; I consider them apostates, and not interested in this Church and kingdom. It is so far, then, a religious institution, that it affects my conscience and the consciences of all good men--it is so far religious that it connects itself with time and with eternity. What are the covenants we enter into, and why is it that Joseph Smith said that unless this principle was entered into this kingdom could not proceed? We ought to know the whys and the wherefores in relation to these matters, and understand something about the principle enunciated. These are simply words; we wish to know their signification.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.221, John Taylor, April. 7, 1866 (emphasis added)

Ultimately, the problem is not simply that the Church’s teachings on plural marriage have changed, but that earlier prophets presented those teachings as commandments from God, with eternal consequences for those who rejected them. Brigham Young declared that those who denied plural marriage would be damned, while John Taylor taught that the Church could not progress without it. These were not presented as tentative opinions, but as divine truths binding upon the faithful.

This raises a fundamental question: How can members distinguish genuine revelation from sincere but mistaken teachings? If we should trust the living prophet, what assurance do we have that future prophets will not repudiate today’s teachings? And if past prophets could be wrong about something so consequential, why should we assume present prophets are not (especially when their teachings cause harm)?

This declaration establishes: (1) the race ban was a doctrine; (2) black people were willing to take bodies with a \"handicap\" because their conduct was not satisfactory in the premortal existence; (3) black people should not have received the priesthood until \"all the rest of the children... received their blessings in the holy priesthood\"; (4) doctrine changes; (5) prophets changing doctrine is quickly forgotten by many members.

My personal experience with simplicity and complexity has been the opposite of Bruce Haden’s promise here, which is why I want to put forward my own position to see if anyone has had a different experience.

From what I have found, an honest pass through complexity (church history, a broader worldview, church social issues, etc) creates nuance, not simplicity.

The simple beliefs like: God’s word is eternal; prophets are doctrinally infallible; the Book of Mormon is a literal history; the church is perfect—but the people aren’t; Brigham and subsequent leaders were directly called by God; polygamy is essential for heaven, and was necessary for early leaders; leaders have the gift of discernment; policy changes but doctrine does not; the spirit testifies only of truth; the great apostasy occurred; the roles of men and women respectively; and so on, do not fully, or sometimes at all, withstand complexity.

I haven’t met or spoken with anyone who has understood the history of the priesthood and temple ban and all the supporting statements made by the first presidency who can simply say, « doctrine does not change and LDS prophets cannot lead the church astray. » I haven’t met or spoken with anyone who understood Joseph’s repeated claims that the Lamanite remnants and descendants lived in what was to become the United States and were the ancestors of the Native Americans (check his letters to Emma) in addition to the linguistic, DNA, and historical evidence generally that contradicts those claims, who can repeat those claims now with any confidence.

Does complexity create simplicity? Or does it create nuance that no longer comports with the « simple » truths of the LDS faith?

I just finished reviewing the most recent Mormon Book Reviews discussion with Kolby Reddish and Jacob Hansen. I appreciated that they managed to keep it civil.

While there were quite a few things that were discussed that I think deserve more consideration, I wanted to address a point that Jacob seemed to hand his hat on throughout the discussion—i.e. what is the purpose of gender. Jacob said he regularly asks that question to people who are questioning the marriage ban for LGBTQ members of the LDS church.

This question begins with a strong presumption of what reality entails, especially when speaking to someone who falls on the agnostic side like Kolby, because it presumes a divine purpose. One of the most freeing things for me resulting from my deconstruction of the LDS faith and Christianity generally is that I no longer needed to look for a divine purpose for my lived reality. Everything that happens to me no longer has to be viewed as blessings or punishments.

Sometimes things just happen by chance, and most everything else can be summed up as survival. My agnostic and non theistic response to Jacob’s question on gender would be the same as my response as to why many living entities on earth are male and female; to guarantee genetic survival through reproduction.

I wonder if Jacob sees a divine purpose for intersex people too?