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 superimpose 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
