Anne Wilde wrote the chapter on Fundamentalist Mormonism in Hamer/Bringhurst’s book Scattering of the Saints. I’ve always viewed Fundamentalist Mormons like an embarrassing relative, and I haven’t really wanted to learn much about them. However, Anne’s chapter was incredibly interesting, and I learned that Fundamentalist Mormonism is much more diverse than I realized.
While the FLDS is the most recognizable “brand”, the largest group of Fundamentalist Mormons are unaffiliated with any group. According to Wilde, many of these unaffiliated fundamentalists secretly practice polygamy within the LDS church, hold callings, attend LDS temple ceremonies without knowledge of LDS leaders.
Wilde seems to know what she is talking about. She was secretly the polygamist wife of Ogden Kraut for years, but all her neighbors thought she was simply a divorced mother of 3 who was active in the LDS Church. Here is an article in USA Today touching on her experiences, and John Dehlin previously interviewed her at Mormon Stories. She is one of the foremost experts on fundamentalist Mormonism.
From pages 259-260 she says,
The labels of “polygamists” or “polygamist sects” are not completely accurate. Although all fundamentalists profess a belief in the doctrine, probably fewer than fifty percent are actually practicing plural marriage….this essay will avoid the discussion of other fundamental doctrinal differences and will focus on plural marriage—specifically its modern day history, the diversity of those who endorse its practice, and popular (but mistaken) stereotypes of fundamentalist Mormons.
Most Mormons are familiar with the Manifesto issued in 1890 by Wilford Woodruff which (supposedly) discontinued the practice. (I plan some future posts looking into this issue in more detail, and Woodruff sent mixed signals.) Wilde says on page 260,
a significant number of LDS general authorities and church members continued to live plural marriage, even taking new wives after the 1890 Manifesto.10 In fact, not until after the so-called “second Manifesto” issued in 1904 by LDS President Joseph F. Smith, followed by the “third and final manifesto” in 1933 issued by LDS President Heber J. Grant, was Mormonism transformed “from a society that idealized polygamy to one that, with equal commitment, exalts the traditional monogamous home.”11
Foundation of Polygamist Authority
Modern Mormons probably wonder how polygamists claim to have any authority to perform marriages. In Dehlin’s interview, Wilde made a distinction that the priesthood and the church are not synonymous. Fundamentalists claim a special revelation was received by John Taylor, 3rd president of the LDS church. From page 261,
Taylor was under tremendous pressure, both inside and outside the LDS church, to relinquish plural marriage in order to alleviate the pressure what Mormons saw as increasing U.S. government persecution. While considering signing a compromise, Taylor took the matter up with the Lord, and reportedly received a revelation in September 1886, wherein the Lord made the course of action very clear:
My son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant of marriage]13 and 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 me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant[?]…it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regards to these matters.14
This 1886 revelation and other revelations received by Taylor and Wilford Woodruff during the 1880-1890 decade,15 were intended to give strength and direction to those Saints who were uncertain as to what direction to take regarding the living of plural marriage.
Fundamentalist Mormons believe that at the time of his presidency Taylor realized that the LDS church would shortly give up its practice in order to conform to the laws of the land. As a consequence, he was instructed to call a few of his brethren and appoint them to keep plural marriage alive as a law of the priesthood. The brethren called and charge with the commission of keeping plural marriage alive were John W. Woolley, Lorin C. Wolley, Samuel Bateman, George Q. Cannon, and Charles Wilcken. Joseph F. Smith (later president of the LDS church) was added to this special quorum of seven or “Priesthood Council,” which also included President Taylor. This is the origin of priesthood authority that most fundamentalist Mormons claim today. They believe that God provided a way for the eternal principles and ordinances of the gospel to be perpetuated, separate from the LDS church,16 as law of the priesthood or as laws of the gospel.”
Wilde discusses the history of many of these groups. There does appear to be quite a bit of diversity. The FLDS are known for their pioneer-era dress, but most polygamists don’t dress or behave oddly. I’d be curious to learn what other differences in doctrines they have, especially if they have other revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. Others have discussed the Second and Third Manifestos, and I plan to discuss those items in the future. Questions or Comments?
Wheat & Tares 
1) Fundamentalists were largely a unified body until the death of Joseph Musser, their leader until the mid-1950s, at which time those who followed Musser’s appointed successor (Rulon Allred) became the Apostolic United Brethen, those who followed several others on his predecessors Council became the FLDS, and those who associated with neither made up the unaffiliated Independents.
2) Part of the reason for this split was related to the issue of arranged marriages, which Musser and Allred opposed.
3) Although I am aware of revelations, visions, etc. that have been received by various leaders as far as I’m aware none have been printed in an updated Doctrine and Covenants. In most cases because they have been considered too sacred to be available to the world.
4) Whilst I respect Anne for many things I do think that her numbers for Independent Fundamentalists are far too high. It seems to include any sympathetic to some aspects of Fundamentalism, without regard to activity. I think most Fundamentalists would estimate a quarter of her numbers at best.
Hmmm, I’m not sure what’s going on with my pie graph, but if you click it you can see a larger image.
Lorenzo, that’s very interesting. I too thought that Anne’s numbers were a bit high, though she does mention that Fundamentalism is more than simply polygamy. I wonder if it’s like the baseball cheats that say that steroids are used by 90% of baseball players. If you’re involved in something, I wonder if you overestimate it’s importance.
I have concerns over what we are to do when our current unified church is broken up — much the like the pie graphs shows.
When all Mormonism is made up of minority sects, we won’t be able to rest so safely in the comfort of the one, true church.
Justin: As far as Fundamentalists see it the Church was broken up between 1886 and 1933, although it still has the biggest share of the pie now (except perhaps when it comes to doctrines and ordinances maintained to the present day).
I wonder if such a chart was made showing active, inactive, and ‘social’ LDS Church members what the percentages would be. I would bet that active, tithe paying, temple recommend holding members would be the smallest group.
I agree that the church died in 1890 — legally-speaking for certain, spiritually-speaking up for debate — however the majority of sustaining votes still resides in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(TM).
This implies that only the priesthood keys held by the LDS church are recognized by God because they are the only ones sustained by a majority of baptized Mormons.
However, were an event to break-up the current, unified LDS church — then no sect would boast a majority of sustaining votes. That’s when things will get interesting.
I agree that there would be no majority share of membership would the current LDS church be divided along lines of active, inactive, and social. However, with the current model, the three still vote the same — as a rubber stamp for the unified LDS church.
I see a future in which the informal divisions of active/inacitve/social will be made fully manifest.
Justin: If the majority of baptized LDS Church Mormons are inactive then aren’t they effectively voting against the current leadership by being so. Isn’t their inactivity an objection in itself to the current Church?
In what sense does a majority determine or ratify authority? Can’t keys be lost by a leader – irrespective of whether they are sustained or not (see D&C 121:37)?
To bring it back to the original post – if keeping alive the unmodified restored Gospel is either a sign of authority or a claim to it (see D&C 64:5), then couldn’t Mormon Fundamentalism (at least in one of its forms) have a claim to being ‘more’ recognized by God then the current LDS Church?
steven shields has identified over 400 restoration groups that trace their history to joseph smith, so to some degree, there is already a break up. however, john hamer has referred to the lds church as jupiter compared to everyone else.
with 15,000,000 members, #2 is the rlds church with 250,000 (1.6%), #3 is bickertones with 10,000. if we accept anne’s numbers about unaffiliated, then that group would be #3. anyway, that means that the lds church makes up 98% of the restoration population and is jupiter, just as hamer says. the rest of the groups are asteroids in comparison.
apostle susan skoor said activity rates between good and bad churches are about the same, so while the active tithe paying mormons might be just 30% of the 15 million members, there are just 30% in other groups (catholic, baptists, flds, etc) as well. the steroid analogy applies here as well-let’s not get too caught up in our disaffection.
God recognizes how the majority votes during solemn assemblies for sustaining votes. Thus President Monson presides over the priesthood validly because a majority of the voting Mormons sustained him as such.
The problem I see with inactivity is that the person removes a person’s ability to vote contrary to the leaders. No vote is not a “no” vote.
Joseph Smith said that, “I will give you a key that will never rust, if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.”
Only by maintaining the keys of the church and the keys of the priesthood does a church remain recognized as true by God. As valid as the claims made by fundementalists are — their priesthood keys are not valid because the keys of the church (or voice of the majority) do not sustain them.
Justin: I am not trying to turn this into a debate, but curiosity requires me to delve a little further into your claims –
May I ask what the source of the quote you give is? Do we have any evidence contemporary to Joseph’s lifetime that he said this?
Presuming it is accurate, could it not be referring to the majority of those Apostles and Church members recognized as such by God – which may or may not be the same as those recognized by the corporate LDS Church?
Considering that the majority of members (being inactive) do not seem to sustain the current Church in any substantial way – couldn’t this be seen as showing that something has gone astray?
MH: There are religious groups out there with remarkably high activity rates – the Seventh Day Adventists (who actually publish such data), and the Old Order Amish, being two notable examples that keep over 75% of their members.
It seems to me entirely possible that the LDS Church could do the same using their techniques – However, the question is whether this would conflict too much with existing LDS traditions, and if it would be considered too onerous or conflict with LDS ideals of free agency.
Concerning the JS quote — I acknowledge that the source is not contemporary to him, yet I know the principle of God validating manifestations of the will of the majority is true — and because of that I find the quote to be useful in this discussion.
That someone no longer sustains a leader in his or her heart, yet fails to manifest it as such during the sustaining vote does not invalidate anything.
Does it show that something has gone astray? Yes. However, the Lord is willing to allow His people to have improper things [e.g. golden calfs, kings, and a crucified messiah] when the voice of the people manifests it as such.
I admit that I have an alternate view of the keys, which may be lending itself to the confusion you and I have. Perhaps if we were to continue this conversation — it would be best to do so at the link I provided.
Were the LDS Church to “fragment”, I see it more along the lines of Judaism with orthodox, reform, etc. There is obviously a lot of overlap, but I think things are headed that direction.
Some people really like rules – almost the more the better. Even an opinion about something as simple as how many earrings someone likes gets turned into “pseudo-doctrine”. Other people are more for the “principle”, yet accept that how each person implements these in their lives’ unique circumstances may differ. The current hierarchy is very much in favor of the former. As they “tighten the screws” however, I wonder if perhaps it isn’t hastening the split.
Justin: I would be happy to continue this discussion somewhere more appropriate.
You wrote that you “know the principle of God validating manifestations of the will of the majority is true” – do I presume that is a personal religious belief? It would seem to me that the Great Apostasy (and others in the past) would show that the opposite can often be true.
Of course many Fundamentalists still believe the Church to hold some commission and authority as relates to those responsibilities they still carry out. They see themselves as the “Holy Order” of Moses’ day or indeed of Joseph Smith’s later Nauvoo period.
I wonder if this aspect of the discussion of keys and authorities might be better served in a new post of its own – on your site, or one of mine if you prefer.
As my comments on here may be wrapping up, and moving elsewhere – I was wondering if an LDS blog like this would be a good place for a guest post from a Mormon Fundamentalist – not dealing with issues of authority or doctrine as such (although some explanation might help clear up some misunderstandings), but looking at the Fundamentalist view of Mormonism in general (our philsophy), the unique aspects of our lives (apart from just polygamy, although that too) and towards the Church (to which most look more favorably than is often expected). Just an idea.
The link I provided in my previous comment is to a post written by LDS Anarchist on what I would say is my understanding of keys and authority.
In short:
There are two sets of keys, those of the church(ex. D&C 42:69)and those of the priesthood (ex. D&C 107:18, 20).
Legitimate churches of Christ must possess both sets of keys. Thus you may discern among the Christian churches fairly easily.
For example, Roman Catholicism claims to possess the keys of the priesthood from Peter, nevertheless, they possess no keys of the church because their priesthood does not operate by the common consent of the members. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is not a legitimate church of Christ and has not been legitimate for more than a thousand years, theirs being a false priesthood.
The breakaways from Catholicism, the Protestants, although restoring the keys of the church thru the law of common consent, lack the keys of the priesthood.
In the case of the Restoration churches, only the main body (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) possesses to this day, both sets of keys. All of the splinter groups that have broken off from the main body since the days of Joseph Smith to now have been a minority of members, meaning that they did not constitute “the voice of the people.” The keys of the church are only found with “the voice of the people,” therefore, all splinter groups are illegitimate because they lack one set of keys (the keys of the church.) Even though some of these groups have been properly ordained, their priesthood is invalid without the keys of the church.
Justin: that seems to me to turn things on their head – isn’t the Church organized, led, and its ordinations and ordinances given by and through the Priesthood? How can the created (Church) be greater than the creator (Priesthood)?
Haven’t there been times when the Church and Priesthood been at odds and the Priesthood took precedence? (For example when Joseph introduced the “law of the Priesthood” plural celestial marriage – it was excommunicatable offense within the Church to live it until 1852)
lorenzo, I would love to have a guest post from a fundamentalist mormon. email me at mormon heretic at gmail dot com and we can work out the details.
and you are welcome to comment on other site, but I would encourage you to keep the conversation here so we all can benefit. I am enjoying the interaction and I think others would enjoy it as well.
I don’t see the creator as the priesthood and its creation as the church.
I see the relationship as a servant/master dynamic. Thus, the servant (priesthood) must harken to its master (the church), whom it is designed to serve.
Unrighteous dominion is dominion without the consent of the governed.
justin, what if the master/slave relationship is the opposite?
lorenzo, regarding activity rates, I am sure you are probably right about the amish activity rates. but I will say that I think that it is easier for small groups to have high activity rates than large groups. there comes a time when it just isn’t very scalable to large groups, and becomes despotic to keep the high activity rates.
MH,
If that were the case, then the Divine right of kings and infallibility of the Pope doctrines would be true by extension. Such an arrangement is contrary to free agency.
MH: Although I have little personal experience with the Seventh Day Adventists I understand they are bigger than the LDS Church, but maintain high activity rates. Its not my impression that they are dictatorial – although they do expect a great deal of understanding and commitment individually from their members.
Justin: But isn’t the Priesthood theocratic? A “God proclaims – man sustains” model (if we wish the blessings)? While I see value in some democratic organizations – wouldn’t putting God’s edicts to a vote undermine an organizations claim to being led by Him?
I can agree that the Priesthood can and does serve the Church, but this doesn’t negate the idea that the Church can and should serve the Priesthood. They are the father (Priesthood) and mother (Church)- and ideally work best together.
after further thought, I think the master/slave concept is probably a bad analogy, especially from a fundamentalist point of view. I think they should be thought of as more equal.
I don’t know much about adventists either, but I would like to say that even if they are large with high activity rates, then they are probably the exception to the rule spoken by susan skoor. she emphasized that on the whole, good and bad churches don’t differ much in activity rates.
But isn’t the Priesthood theocratic?
No, priesthood is quite egalitarian. It is the language of a Father in heaven who does not rule by compulsory means — but who asks for the willful consent of free agents before He does anything.
His dominion is without compulsory means that all things obey Him because they want to, not because “God proclaims – man sustains”. His almighty power comes from the combined agencies of His children, freely and voluntarily obeying Him. Were He ever to try to force obedience upon any of His creations, He would lose respect and honor in the eyes of everything with agency (the created Universe) and would cease to be God.
Therefore, the priesthood cannot be used without the consent of those it is intended to serve. It is the agency of the members (manifested as the keys of the church) that authorizes the priesthood, both ordinations and licenses.
According to the predominate view, priesthood is authority, keys are the power to direct the official labors of the church, and possessing keys does not increase priesthood. For example, we say that the prophet, who possesses every key in full activation, has no more authority (priesthood) than that of an elder who possesses none of the keys. Although authority is equal among all priesthood holders, power is not. Power, in the form of keys, is concentrated and centered at the top (the prophet) and is then disbursed to the various presidencies down below as he sees fit.
This triangle hierarchy is patterned after the Gentile “divine right of kings” and is similar to the infallibility of the Pope doctrine of catholics. Jesus described a priesthood of an inverted triangle — an anarchic body of believers in which the leaders served (or were under) those whom they serve.
it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regards to these matters
In all the revelations that Joseph Smith received, the Lord called this principle “agency.” It is the saints that referred to it as “free agency.” Yet, here we have a purported revelation given to John Taylor in which now the Lord is calling it “free agency” like the saints. Makes me wonder about that…
Justin:
I disagree with you that the priesthood is egalitarian. If it were truly egalitarian it would allow women in the church to hold the same offices as the brethren. As it stands now, it doesn’t
Sorry diane, I was speaking in normative terms — not descriptive ones.
Historically, the keys of the church have always been, essentially, held by the baptized women and children, as their numbers have made up the “voice of the people” or majority. Even during times when plural marriage was practiced, the combined female vote was overwhelmingly more numerous than its male counterpart, but even during these monogamous modern times, the women of the church still control the outcome of any vote. In any given branch, ward, stake or district of the church, the women and non priesthood-holding children routinely far outnumber the priesthood-holding men.
Numbered alone, even without including children, the female members typically make up more than 51% of any sized church congregation. This means that if the females of the LDS church were to vote as a block, every decision would be decided solely by them, regardless of how the combined male vote was cast. Even if the men were to vote as a block to oppose the females, they still would be powerless to stop them.
Thus, the keys of the church have been placed firmly in the hands of the women of the church. This is by divine design, just as the keys of the priesthood have been placed firmly in the hands of the men of the church.
So if you disagree with the way the men in leadership positions are organizing the priesthood into a Gentile hierarchy system for men only — then I suggest you begin voting as such, and encouraging friends in your ward to do the same.
diane, I agree that the priesthood hasn’t been egalitarian, but I think it ‘should’ be egalitarian, and I have hopes that it will be one day. hold on to your hat, because I have 2 women priesthood posts in the works.
#26 Justin
While we theoretically “vote” in the Church, it seems about as much as a “vote” as those held in North Korea, Myanmar, or the old Soviet Union. We merely sustain what has been pre-decided by someone higher in the hierarchy.
I think the concept of actually discussing/voting on an issue is much more applicable to the CofC, at least as far as I understand their organization. Admittedly, what I know is quite little, but it seems like talking about “voting” actually makes sense in their context.
#26 Justin
Also, based on the “voting power” of the women and children, you claim: “Thus, the keys of the church have been placed firmly in the hands of the women of the church.”
This does seem a bit of double-speak to me. The official name of North Korea is actually the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. So technically the “power” in Korea also belongs to the people.
We only “merely sustain what has been pre-decided by someone higher in the hierarchy” insofar as the members chose to vote as a rubber stamp for such things. The “priesthood hierarchy” that every member could draw so well (you’ve surly seen it in the new Gospel Principles manual) — doesn’t actually exist, but it only an example of a consensus reality.
We get what we want from the system God has outlined. The LDS saints are lazy and want “the brethren” to think for them — alas, what do we have:
1) A rubber stamp, “sustain the leaders” voting system.
2) A “follow the prophet” leadership model in which personal manifestations of the best gifts of the spirit are marginalized and replaced with something a bit more correlatable.
justin, while many members are lazy, there is a culture of ‘follow the brethren’ in the church. ‘if ye are not one, ye are not mine.’ surely you’ve seen this. I agree with mike on this one. the brethren are seeking compliance, not conformity.
that should read ‘compliance and conformity, not consensus.’
a slight thread jack, but not really, I’ve been watching the TLC series “Sister Wives”.
The more I think about it the more angry I become. It seems like polygamy is set up to the mans’ advantage in that if the first wife is jealous, its’ her fault and he has the BOM to support him. He also has the BOM to support him in going out and in any other marriage cheat on his wife and have kids with another woman, all under the guise of its’ ordained of God.
I found the guy on the show somewhat likable, but highly and skillfully manipulative. Especially, when the first wife asked him to think about what it would feel like if she were with another man. His reply” That’s vulgar”
What’s vulgar to me is not only his response but his wife’s because she’s trying to please his needs first.
diane – lol actually I just watched that same episode last night (and the show in general for the first time). It was hard not to scoff somewhat violently at his remark at how “vulgar” and unnatural and against God the idea of her taking an extra husband would be.
Diane & Adam: For those brought up in a monogamist household the idea of polygamy might be ‘vulgar’. For those brought up in a household in which many women are married to several men the idea of the opposite would probably be a strange and ‘vulgar’ one – not just for the man, but for most women in that lifestyle.
The relationship dynamics of plygny (one men – several women) and polyandry (one woman – several men) are very different. One challenge with the latter is that without modern DNA testing a woman couldn’t be certain who the father of her children were. Sociologists and Biologists can illustrate many successful polygamous cultures, but few which are polyandrous.
For Mormon Fundamentalists who believe (based on early Mormon doctrine) that a man is the Priesthood head of his household (there to serve and care for his family), and that one of the important purposes of marriage is the raising of children, then polyandry would make no sense – in terms of authority or child raising.
For polygamous relationships to work women as well as men have to share the same beliefs and ideals. These women believe that it is the way that a loving God wants them to live, and that it will bring them greater advancement and happiness.
I miswrote in my last comment – I meant to say that those who come from a household in which several women are married to one man might find the opposite vulgar.
Diane: I would like to know where in the Book of Mormon it would justify or encourage a man to be unfaithful to his wife? Marital fidelity is highly important in plural marriage, and adultery is considered a great sin. Most polygamous men who would cheat on their wives would quickly find themselves without any at all.
@Lorenzo
I get what you say, really I do, but the reality is that I know no women who have more than one husband.
BTW, to me (I’m single) the idea of having more than one husband would just be to exhausting. Think of it. Two men I would have to pick up their dirty underwear and socks because he can’t quite reach the hamper.
Having to say, not tonight honey, I have a headache. Lol Makes no sense to me at all.
@ Lorenzo)
I meant in terms of honoring plural marriage, its’ like they (meaning men are given permission because its’ ordained of God that they go out and take on another wife.) Where as in a regular monogamous relationship it would be cheating and enough for a married woman to take her spouses clothes and throw them on the front lawn and burn them
I’m starting a show called “Brother Husbands” – anyone with me?
😀
Diane: Whilst I can’t speak for every such man – I know that for many it is a trial of faith that they don’t enter into lightly, that in many circumstances it is their first wife who encourages such a marriage, or they are both approached by another woman, and the that religious devotion of the man and the woman being married is seen as the most important factor. A man who seems to be looking for a wife due to temptation is likely to be looked upon with suspicion and find few women willing to consider him. It is entered into prayerfully and seriously.
Of course a man who loves his wives will try to show them so, and would not wish them to be unhappy, so he will try and navigate any challenges that might arise with love and compassion. I don’t know of anyone though who would enter into this way of life without believing they and any women involved had personal revelation, and that it was done with the right intentions, and the correct authority.
I’m glad to see the topic has taken a turn towards true plural marriage, which encompasses both polyandry and polygyny. I wrote a post on the subject at LDS Anarchy.
Essentially, human beings are designed to live in multi-male/multi-female tribes in which all tribal members share sexual access to the others in the group. This is the system Joseph Smith tried to implement among the saints — a system that would have fully activated our tribal functions as members of the church of Christ. Recent scientific research has also revealed that this system also coincides with the way humans originally lived prior to the dawn of agriculture.
MH #31/32:
I’m confused, in what way do we disagree on, “while many members are lazy, there is a culture of ‘follow the brethren’ in the church. ‘if ye are not one, ye are not mine.’ surely you’ve seen this…the brethren are seeking compliance and conformity, not consensus.“?
I agree that many members are lazy,
there is a leader-promoted culture of “follow the brethren”,
and priesthood leaders seek compliance and conformity.
The consensus I mentioned is in relation to any form of priesthood hierarchy existing only as a form of consensus reality — wherein the group agrees by consensus that something has true existence, thus giving that thing a life of its own, despite the thing not having a real existence outside of the consensus of the group.
Another example of this would be with Federal Reserve notes. Wiki has an article on the subject.
Justin:
There are clearly examples of successful cultures in history using plural marriage. I’ll even give you that there will be plural marriage in the afterlife with infinite numbers of husbands and wives for each individual. Modern cosmology kind of forces that conclusion, IMHO, if you grant that our bodies are associated with spirits. There are lots of copies of our bodies floating around spacetime, living all lots of different choices of marriage and childbearing.
However, you really determine whether a behavior is successful in terms of what percentage of the species adopts it. And one spouse per person (at least at one time) is the overwhelming pattern in society. Only a tiny fraction of humanity has multiple spouses.
Yes Firetag, I too equally mourn at how vast the Luciferian control systems have integrated human society. We have reached a point where only a tiny fraction of humanity is comfortable living in a way congruent with our nature.
Liberate the masses from the monogamous restrictions (laws of illegality) placed upon them and then we’ll see what form of marriage mankind would naturally choose. Methinks the multiple husband/multiple wife system would quickly make monogamy obsolete.
Monogamy’s “success” is a direct result of the State’s marriage monolopy and its extreme prejudice against anything else (coercion), just as communism’s success was a direct result of the State forcing people to accept it. But monogamy should be viewed in terms of the divorce, separation and infidelity rates among monogamists. Under such scrutiny, are you sure that it is truly a success?
Justin, I guess we are mostly in agreement. I just disagree with this comment of yours in particular: The LDS saints are lazy and want “the brethren” to think for them. You really think the saints want the brethren to think for them? I don’t.
Adam, Brother Husbands sounds interesting–in an odd way. I would watch it with you some time.
Since the system is designed to manifest the voice of the people thru common consent — I am lead to conclude that things are the way they are b/c the members have wanted it that way.
So you don’t think the continual drum beating of “follow the brethren”, “sustaining our leaders”, etc. has anything to do with the rubber stamp?
Justin:
I read “Stranger in a Strange Land” a long time ago. You do understand that I wasn’t agreeing with you about how it’s supposed to work on earth? I think that the LDS got to an approximation of the right position about monogamy on earth, plural marriage in heaven, but got there backwards and did a lot of harm, IMO, by starting with polygamy on earth. And plural marriage should never be about mate status in a Zionic-hoping society. The people most qualified for exaltation are those you least care about the perks. “The greatest among you shall be the servant of all.” Right?
I’ll stick with monogamy in this life; it’s served me well for 33 years and counting.
Anarchist:
The “state” is an evolutionary newbie. Pair bonding and investing exorbitantly in small numbers of children has been humanity’s major stock in trade, according to several evolutionary scenarios, for a couple of millions of years.
MH, sure — I recognize what you are saying, however I place the problem’s origin in the laziness of members who are no longer seeking manifestations of the best gifts of the spirit.
Because the keys of the church can decide all matters, even within the priesthood itself, the church of Christ will be judged by Him according to how they use them. For example, members can use their keys to sustain minister-servant priesthood holders, who do not maintain power or influence by virtue of their office, or they can use them to sustain ecclesiastical abusers. If we have wicked leaders in the church, it is because we have a wicked church choosing and upholding the wicked leaders, for the power exists to remove all wicked leaders in a heartbeat. It is as simple as raising a hand in opposition. The Lord has made it extremely easy to get rid of all the snakes in church so that we are left without any excuse.
Just as priesthood keys are a test to priesthood holders, so church keys are intended to prove all church members. If the time ever comes when the keys of the church are used as a rubberstamp to approve of everything the priesthood desires to do and says, because of the titles of their offices, the keys will cease to function as a check on the priesthood. At that point, the church keys will convert the minister-servant status of priesthood into an honor of men, with celebrity status, allowing ecclesiastical abusers to take control of every priesthood office. When this happens to a church on a wide-scale basis, the voice of the people (i.e., the church) would be choosing iniquity, causing the judgments of God to come upon it.
Firetag, my comments in #44 contained sarcasm — also according to the researchers behind Sex at Dawn , your claim that monogamy “has been humanity’s major stock in trade…for a couple of millions of years” stands more as a statement of belief rather than fact.
I think there is little “common consent” left in the LDS Church. Proclamations come down from above. The “masses” are simply expected to “follow the prophet”. So suggesting that things are how they are because the members want them that way is wrong. It is like suggesting that the peasants in North Korea want to live in poverty because they support their Dear Leader.
Real or not, there is a certain amount of fear involved. There is the very real teaching in the LDS Church that your eternal salvation is absolutely dependent on sustaining and following the prophet – even to the extent that you disagree and think it is wrong – you will be blessed for your obedience nonetheless.
Justin, you beat me to the punch.
Firetag, what Justin said about Sex at Dawn.
Whether or not “There is the very real teaching in the LDS Church that your eternal salvation is absolutely dependent on sustaining and following the prophet doesn’t make it mean that you will not attain salvation without brother Monson’s say-so.
The Lord works by common consent — if, as you say Mike S, the church does not then that tells us a lot about the coming fate of the current unified LDS church.
The fact remains that should a majority of your congregation manifest votes opposed to a calling that the bishopric will not be justified by the Lord is going thru with that calling anyway. Members have the power, it’s just that we forfeited it long ago.
Monogamy is actually an artifact of the Nordic and Germanic tribes whose morality we have inherited. At least in part (I hope no one goes a Viking and thinks it moral any more).
Which creates an interesting culture clash. We reject Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. David, Solomon and Martin Luther (who espoused polygamy for some of the rulers he advised).
http://www.sexatdawn.com/page11/page7/page7.html
I rather think that in the hereafter things will be much more different than we know, that it does not yet appear what we shall be, other than we shall be like Christ.
And I rather treasure monogamy as a gift that makes life so much better for me.
But I’m not certain I see it as a given rather than as a gift.
Justin and Anarchist:
My actual statement was: “Pair bonding and investing exorbitantly in small numbers of children has been humanity’s major stock in trade…” Sex at Dawn may be a sexy counter-cultural critique, but it is certainly NOT established evolutionary theory. We aren’t bonobos; we aren’t chimps. We didn’t succeed in evolutionary terms by adopting their niche.
When I spoke of evolutionary scenarios, I was going back to fundamental scenarios of how we stood up, got large brains, and started having fewer babies and be sure more of our genes made it to the next generation.
The fact is well established that males and females have a different optimal strategy in which males try to copulate as much as possible while excluding other males, and females want post-birth long term commitment built on bonding to their own infants.
Polygamy is a male-dominated strategy which may work better in some societies than others, but it isn’t optimal with most societies, so most societies don’t adopt it.
It is doubtful how it is consistent with equality between male and female when civilization doesn’t require handling a broadsword or a battle ax any more.
Firetag,
There is a difference between a fact being “well established” and being oft repeated. I acknowledge that the standard narrative is “that males and females have a different optimal strategy in which males try to copulate as much as possible while excluding other males, and females want post-birth long term commitment built on bonding to their own infants.”
However, if, as the current narrative states, men are inclined to be promiscuous and women are not — then our behavior should match that of gorillas -– which fight over the exclusive rights to have sex with all the women in the group. However, biologically, it seems that humans are designed to use a woman’s body as the battleground. In other words, unlike gorillas, who have developed to physically compete for mates, human sperm is made to race against sperm from other men — and the female organ is the formidable racetrack able to sort out the hardiest genes.
As the research described in the Sex at Dawn book reveals, by nature human’s sexuality is a multi-male/multi-female mating system, or tribe. God has ordained marriage to exactly correspond to our natural sexual desires and natures, so that we may live out our lives free from guilt and shame, in joy, happiness and pleasure.
If you take a look at marriage from an agency stand-point, knowing that it was Satan’s desire to destroy agency, then monogamy is the devil’s tool of choice because it limits the agency of both parties with respect to everyone else.
Polygyny and polyandry would come in second because each limits the agency of only one of the sexes with respect to everyone else, while unfettering the agency of the other gender.
True, tribal plural marriage would be the worst thing the devil would want, as no one’s agency is limited.
Justin,
for some reason, our moderation filter was overreacting, so I fished your comment out.
I’m going to try to figure out what set it off…probably something about sex.
Thanks — sorry for wigging it out.
always an interesting topic. I am somewhat amused at the term “fundamentalist” since one of the fundamentals is having a Prophet with the proper Priesthood authority and keys. And if the keys were taken from Wilford Woodruff because of the manifesto, why would they be given to someone with no leadership standing in the Church. I’ve wonder that about the reorganization as well. I am sure there is a response to that. And the practice of polygamy also goes against the law of the land (at least for now), which is embodied in the 12th Article of Faith, written by Joseph Smith, a Prophet they do recognize and canonized by the church prior to the manifesto.
I suppose you have the argument that God’s laws transcend man’s laws, but the AoF doesn’t say that.
So what gives?
Justin:
And the “established” narrative, against which ideas from Sex at Dawn complains, says that the strategy humans adopted was to become more effective small animal protein hunters as the forests began to separate and small game could be isolated. High protein diets for females during pregnancy and early infant care are required to build larger more complex brains. Hands are required to carry meat back to females, and pair bonds are required to keep the male delivering that meat to the right female.
Are the established positions proven? Of course not. We can’t even prove that we’re not naked because we started to evolve back into aquatic animals. We do have a diving reflex, for example.
Women can certainly be promiscuous in such evolutionary scenarios. It’s to their evolutionary advantage to breed with the biologically superior bad boy as long as the good husband continues to bring home the bacon (or monkey, as the case may be). And when fitness was about who could gather the best warriors, it was often (and still is) to the husband’s evolutionary advantage to keep bringing home the bacon until the leader turns elsewhere.
But one book does not an establishment overturn, no matter how firmly believed by its adherents, or there would be a lot more Restorationists than there are.
Jeff: Having a prophet, with the proper Priesthood authority and keys is central to the beliefs of most Mormon Fundamentalists. We just don’t see the Church as the only or highest organization set up under Joseph Smith. To us the fact that the Church doesn’t keep alive plural marriage and many other beliefs and practices indicates that it doesn’t hold all the keys(see D&C 64:5).
As for the law of the land goes – the Articles of Faith say we are saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. When Joseph Smith lived plural marriage it was against the laws of Illinois, from the 1860s when Brigham Young (and all the Church Presidents to Heber J. Grant) lived it it was also against the laws of the land.
Sustaining the A of F as scripture was just a political maneuver that was suggested to the Church (TM) by the California lobbying groups hired to expedient Utah’s bid for statehood.
Firetag We didn’t succeed in evolutionary terms by adopting their niche. — and neither are they at the moment. Makes one think.
Ethesis:
The point is that we DID succeed, spectacularly, so maybe we ought to be focused on the best estimate of what worked (i.e., pair bonding) and not looking to learn from species that were comparatively unsuccessful for lessons about our “nature” or God’s intent for us.
Firetag, I’m sorry to hear your confusion on what counts as success for humans, and how we are designed by our very natures to live. For anyone interested, I and LDS Anarchist have written very concise posts that describe exactly how Firetag is incorrect.
Here and Here
LDS anarchist, I just have to point out that your post makes a pretty weak case for this “tribal plural marriage” notion. The emphasis as supported by this D&C of yours is heavy on polygyny, with polyandry merely being a means for a polygynous dude to snatch a chick from another fella.
Polygyny for the masses obviously won’t work. The ratios won’t support that. Start your own religion with a heavy emphasis on “I’m the man” and you can probably work it in for yourself, with some clauses that would exempt/prevent the common man. Make sure to collect a few spinsters along with the young maids for appearances sake.
Hogwash.
this post
SUNNofaB.C.Rich, the “Marriage without a marriage license is ordained of God” post took as its text D&C 49: 15. I’m not sure how you extract that the “emphasis as supported by this D&C of yours is heavy on polygyny, with polyandry merely being a means for a polygynous dude to snatch a chick from another fella” since D&C 49: 15 doesn’t even mention polygyny or polyandry, just marriage between a man and a woman. The post explains that there are three types of marriage, all of which are valid in the eyes of God and are ordained of Him. Even if we eliminate the third type (temple celestial marriage, which people typically think of as encompassing plural marriage), the first two types also encompass polygyny, polyandry and multiple husband/multiple wife marriage systems.
The plural marriage practiced by Joseph Smith was a multiple husband/multiple wife marriage system, not strict polygyny. Let me point you to another post of mine, Establishing the tribes of Israel: the real reason for plural marriage. It may give you a better understanding as to why the “tribal plural marriage” notion, as you put it, is on more solid ground than you think.
I read your post and your references, more importantly I know the history and I stand by my analysis. Hogwash was a nice way to put it.
SUNNofaB.C.Rich,
Do you have a better explanation as to why forbidding to marry is actually ordained of God, contrary to D&C 49:15 — I mean better than just stating that it is nonsense?
Sure thing, sport. Til death do us part polyandry results in destruction! (D&C 132:41) for a woman. Til death do us part polygyny is good to go, no problemo (according to you).
Apparently God is the one forbidding to marry (til death do us part, polyandry type)
Not a case for tribal plural marriage (besides, that’s a lot of red tape for an “anarchist” isn’t it?) simply justification, possibly after the fact? for Joe Smith to “get with” some other chicks.
SUNNofaB.C.Rich, your comment reminded me of something Derek P. Moore once wrote,
I think his comment applies to D&C 132: 41. The Lord doesn’t want any of his daughters to be destroyed, right? Good thing all those polyandrous “’til death do us part” marriages will eventually get sealed for time and all eternity.
Thus we see that God forbids no one to marry.
well..
1. I’m not a mormon so I don’t have to operate/believe within the confines of what’s written in your D&C. or believe that Joe was perfect.
2. Even if I was a mormon, your D&C scriptures clearly and obviously don’t make a case for “tribal plural marriage” It makes a case for “owning ten virgins”.
3. Who’s Derek Moore?
nuff said?
3. The admins probably know more about him than I do. I believe that they attempted to ban him from Mormon Matters some time in the past. (He’s a hacker so I don’t know how successful they were at it.) I know of him only because he’s left comments on my blog.
2. The church doesn’t currently practice tribal plural marriage while all spouses are alive, but it does seal a dead wife to all her dead husbands (polyandry) and it does seal men to more than one wife (polygyny). All these after the fact sealings for time and all eternity (sealing a woman to multiple husbands and sealing a man to multiple wives) is tribal plural marriage. None of this would be possible unless the “D&C scriptures clearly and obviously” made a case for tribal plural marriage because that is where the authority to do such things comes from. So, although you are right that it makes a case for “owning” ten virgins, it also makes a case for having ten husbands.
1. Well, even not being Mormon, what’s wrong with men and women marrying whomever they choose to marry and having as many living spouses as they want? The D&C doesn’t confine marriage, it justifies it and ordains it of God. It frees it up and unencumbers it from the control of the state. Don’t you believe in marriage freedom? Or am I talking to a statist?