|
You are here: Greater Things > Newsletter > Archive > Jan. - Aug. 1999 > #44 |
Polygamy -- a Stumblingblock or a Necessary Prerequisite?
Message #44
Date: Aug 31 1999 16:05:47 EDT
From: "Greater Things" <Greater_Things-owner@listbot.com>
Subject: Polygamy -- Stumbling Block or Necessary Prerequisite?
SUBJECT: Polygamy -- a Stumblingblock or a Necessary Prerequisite?
From: Sterling D. Allan <sterlingda@GreaterThings.com>
To: baptism_of_fire@egroups.com <baptism_of_fire@egroups.com>
[Join by sending blank email to: Baptism_of_Fire-subscribe@topica.com]
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Celestial Marriage
Okay, here is some controversial feedback to the several posts of recent
regarding plural marriage.
Before launching into this controversial subject, let me preface my
remarks by telling you which camp I am in. I do not consider myself a
"fundamentalist" in the definition of that word which means an attempt to
recreate high points of the past. Rather, I view myself as a
"progressive" [e.g. Greater Things], with an eye to the future, when all
impurities will be purged, all stumbling blocks removed, all false
traditions overturned. In other words, while I honor and revere the great
men and women of the past, I do not believe their contributions were the
end of the story, but rather a monument in the epoch journey of our
society toward Zion. Therefore, in proposing that Joseph Smith and others
of the early brethren might have been wrong on certain points, I am not
casting doubt on everything they produced. Rather, I am seeking to move
forward from the point they were at, rather than repeating their mistakes.
So, regarding polygamy . . .
My evolving belief, backed up by my studies and my intuition, tells me
that polygamy is not the highest order of marriage, nor is polyandry (and
really, if you are going to return to the practices of Joseph Smith you
must embrace both). Rather, I believe that these were entered into by the
early brethren as a stumbling block to them and to the church. At the
same time, I do believe that a person can enter into the practice of
plural marriage and attain the highest degree of exaltation -- for this
path is indeed a rigorous one and will impose a great deal of growth to
those who submit themselves to it. (At the same time, my saying this
becomes moot inasmuch as I believe that eventually all achieve exaltation
-- if not in this life then in a subsequent mortalities elsewhere, though
it may take eons of time. This is a subject for another post, another
time.)
As my first point of support for my premise, let me call your attention to
a contradiction between the words of Jacob, and those of D&C 132. Jacob
says, "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines,
which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord." (2:24)
On the other hand D&C 132 states, "David's wives and concubines were given
unto him of me..., and in none of these things did he sin against me save
in the case of Uriah and his wife."
These statements, in my estimation, are mutually exclusive. Both could
not be right.
When I look at the institution of polygamy and how it tends to degrade
women and seduce men, I can't help but believe that Jacob's version more
accurately reflects the Lord's view on the matter.
My second point in favor of my premise is found in the account of Abraham
and Sarah and Hagar.
Joseph Smith elevates Abraham's polygamy to that of an archetypal
relationship. If we wish to inherit what Abraham has, we must do what
Abraham did.
Taken so literally, this is flawed doctrine, for it assumes that Abraham
never made any mistakes from which we were to learn, not repeat. It is
the stuff of "just follow the prophet," which can lead one to the brink of
hell at which point they will hopefully realign their devotion to the Lord
who is the only sure foundation.
In Galatians 4, Paul enforces the premise that we are to learn from
Abraham's folly, not reinterpret it as preferable behavior. He very
clearly refers to Sarah as representing "the promise" while Hagar
represents "the flesh."
See "Galatians 4 poetic structure"
http://www.greaterthings.com/Parallels/Bible/Gal4-Study.htm
God promised Abraham and Sarah that they would have offspring as vast as
the sands of the sea or the stars in the heavens. We know from hindsight
that God delivered on that promise, enabling them to have a child in their
old age.
Meanwhile, before hindsight kicked in, as they got up in years, and had no
children, you can imagine the turmoil they encountered in their faith.
Whether it was Abraham, or Sarah (probably mostly Sarah) who presented the
suggestion to imitate the culture of the day and have a child by another
woman, Hagar in this case, I believe that this decision was based on a
lack of belief in the promise God had given them. It represented them
taking matters into their own hands.
Did God concur? Yes, the same as he finally concurred when Joseph
badgered him about letting Martin Harris take the 116 pages of BofM
manuscript, which were then lost. It wasn't God's preference so much as
his acquiescence to their agency: "You want to do it your way? Fine, go
ahead, and you will see what comes of it." (which is his will -- that we
learn from our mistakes and then seek a better way.)
So in a rough sense, yes, God commanded Abraham to take Hagar. But it was
only after their badgering him with the question, because of their lack of
faith that God could enable them to have a child. The same way that he
"commanded" Moses to give the children of Israel the Law of Moses. This
was not because the Law of Moses was preferable, but because it was the
only thing the children of Israel would have accepted in their agency.
God works with us where we are, beckons us to progress, but allows us to
wallow in our ruts so long as we desire. In fact, he is really good at
rubbing our noses in our deception so that we will get the point.
The most blatant manifestation of this phenomenon is recorded in the II
Thes. 2:11; Isaiah 66:4 sister prophecy: "God will send them strong
delusions that they should believe a lie, because when he called, there
was none to answer."
Another point I would set forth for the support of this premise that
polygamy is not the highest law of marriage but rather a stumbling block
is in the unflattering metaphor it presents.
You are of course aware of the metaphorical relationship between the Lord
and the church as being like bride and bridegroom.
Now impose on that metaphor the polygamy model.
Doctrinally (supposedly), in a polygamous relationship, the first wife has
preferable status. She is the head wife.
That is the teaching anyway.
But in practice, the oldest wife almost always gets neglected for the
younger more attractive and vivacious women who are brought into the
marriage. The first wife is set aside, even though doctrinally she is
premier.
So it is with the Mormon church and its devotion to the Lord.
Doctrinally, Jesus Christ is the center of their worship. But in
practice, the other gods of the land get preference, for they are far more
attractive and vivacious. Sports, money, fame, the prophet, and even the
church as an institution itself, all compete for the attention of the
heart, and the Lord, who should be first, ends up being set in a far
corner. Doctrinally, polygamy does not wash with "cleave unto thy wife
and none other," any more than idolatry is in keeping with "thou shalt
have none other gods before me."
I have other reasons to believe polygamy is a stumbling block, and not a
necessary prerequisite to exaltation, but let these suffice at present.
Sincerely,
Sterling D. Allan
http://www.GreaterThings.com
new scripture word studies
