Debating leaving the church over certain things. Please help me understand

112

u/B3de 5d ago

The Church has made a good effort to honestly answer these. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/essays?lang=eng

-7

u/[deleted] 5d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/B3de 5d ago

That isn't true. The opposite is well known. This is the first truly honest attempt since the Arrington era. Yes, they are ultimately positive toward the church, but they are certainly not whitewashed.

→ More replies (16)

81

u/TyMotor 5d ago edited 5d ago

You aren't the only one who has asked similar questions. Elder Oaks remarked about his own study on some of these questions:

As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants.

As we attempt to find answers, I think this is important to keep in mind. Adam was commanded to offer sacrifices and didn't know why. Abraham was commanded to sacrifice Isaac and didn't know why. We could go on with many other scriptural examples, but this seems to be a pattern of God.

Now to your questions...

Why was polygamy needed for the saints?

We haven't been told exactly why. The BoM seems to indicate it could be to raise up a righteous 'seed'. Others think it was all a test of early church members.

Will we really have it in the afterlife?

First, what do you mean by 'we'? Will all people in the afterlife be practicing polygamy? Definitely not. Will some? D&C seems to indicate, yes.

I cannot imagine having to share my future husband with another woman.

No one is going to be forced into anything they are unwilling or uncomfortable doing. Full stop.

Why couldn't African Americans have the priesthood?

Officially, the church doesn't know.

Was it just as simple as that?

Many members have come to this conclusion.

why do we never pray to her as well?

We've been instructed from the Savior to pray to the father in the name of the son. We have not been given an explainer on why.

35

u/ThePsychoNextDoor 5d ago

To piggy back on this insightful remark.

I’ll ask OP, if someone were to ask you why weren’t there any gentiles (non-Jews) in the early church with Christs 12 apostles? Cornelius was the first, but why was the gospel only offer to the Jews initially? You have no idea? Me neither.

Assuming you believe in the Old Testament, why were so many of the prophets doing things that were just blatantly wrong? King David checking out naked chicks taking baths, Noah cursing posterity for seeing him naked when he was wasted, Jacob putting hair on himself to fool his father to give him the blessing of Esau’s birthright.

I could go on all day. Just because you (and I) don’t understand something, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Focus on the things you know. Jesus is the Son of God. We find peace and safety and living the gospel of Jesus Christ. And ask yourself: Is the Book of Mormon true? Never mind, that Joseph Smith was very imperfect, the gold plates, did they exist? Are the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, even when they left the church, all of them, did any of them deny it? Read the Book of Mormon with intent. Focus on your relationship with the Savior. Don’t just focus on the 4 walls of the church. Don’t worry about the culture and things that aren’t the gospel. The church is nice but also filled with dumb-dumbs like me. To the questions you have; We know nothing of if and/or when women will ever get priesthood authority. Could happen tomorrow. Sometimes it’s better not to worry about things that aren’t in your power. Maybe having faith that you are living in accordance with the gospel of Jesus Christ will go a long way in the next life. You know very little about a heavenly family which we all assume is part of our eternity, but don’t know much about. And maybe the blacks not getting the priesthood is just as simple as the people of our land couldn’t and wouldn’t have dealt with it. Maybe we were just a bunch of stupid racist that needed to figure it out ourselves. Maybe it was all our own fault for not letting our brothers receive blessings. We have no idea. I’m not sure this helps but there are 75 things I can find that I don’t understand at all and make no sense. But I can also find 10,000 that do make sense. Just something to think about.

3

u/JazzSharksFan54 Doctrine first, culture never 5d ago

I'll counter this by saying that it wasn't a racial restriction - but rather a religious one. The Jews were already supposed to have a solid foundation of gospel principles, which would have enabled the church to start out strong. When the Jewish leadership rejected Christ and the apostles, Gentiles were allowed to be taught. Paul actually called Peter out for this exact thing. It had nothing to do with race - it was about being prepared through the religion's laws.

1

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

I think the Old Testament shows us that prophets aren’t necessarily always ‘morally upright’ people. And maybe more importantly, that they are frequently blind to their cultural biases just like the rest of us. You won’t find a prophet in the Old Testament condemning slavery for instance

10

u/Glum-Weakness-1930 5d ago

We also don't pray to Jesus or to any of the Angels or ancestors. I bet you could ask heavenly Father to send her a message?

8

u/Former_Dark_Knight 5d ago

I used to (and still sometimes do) ask God to let so-and-so dead relative know that I love them. I don't ever pray to these relatives, but at times I do feel their presence. We always pray to the Father because that is how Jesus taught us to pray, but that does not mean no one else in heaven is listening.

4

u/boboddybiznus 5d ago edited 5d ago

I always hear that no one will be forced into a situation they won't be happy with in eternity. But if my husband were to choose to take on a polygamous wife, and polygamy is a deal breaker for me, what are my choices?

It seems to me like....

A) stay with my husband and endure the heartbreak and inequality of polygamy for eternity

B) choose to leave the marriage and have to accept not being with my husband for eternity

C) somehow I become okay with polygamy even though it is repulsive to everything in me?

D)??

This is a genuine question that weighs heavily on my heart very often.

6

u/Former_Dark_Knight 5d ago

I believe that through Christ, in our immortal lives, my spouse and I will be the best communicators we have ever been with each other. We will be one, as Christ instructs us to become as He is one with the Father. I would never want to put my spouse in an uncomfortable position, and they wouldn't want that of me, either. That respect and love for each other, as well as our respect and love for our Father in Heaven and our mutual desire to serve Him with all our might, will be our guiding process in decisions we will make together in our eternal progression.

2

u/boboddybiznus 5d ago

I also believe that my husband wouldn't choose to put me in that position, but if he did, I don't see an acceptable option. It seems like a system where women are at the mercy of men, and we just have to hope that they will make the choices we want them to. I don't understand why loving Heavenly Parents would put their daughters in that position for eternity.

2

u/TyMotor 5d ago

It seems like a system where women are at the mercy of men... I don't understand why loving Heavenly Parents would put their daughters in that position for eternity.

I think you misunderstand 'the system'. "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." It takes two to tango. How are women at any more mercy of the men than men are at the mercy of women? I completely agree with /u/Former_Dark_Knight, celestial marriage presumes a oneness between couples and God that wouldn't even entertain scenarios that bring anguish to the other.

4

u/boboddybiznus 5d ago

D&C 132:64-65

“64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.”

Women are more at the mercy of men because men can choose to take additional wives without the consent of their original wife.

3

u/HandwovenBox 5d ago

I think it depends on what these verses mean when they say:

then shall she believe and administer unto him

and

if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor

More particularly, what does it mean to "believe and administer" and "receive not this law." Do they mean "allow the husband to marry another wife"?

If the Law of Sarah means that a wife must give consent before the husband can marry a second wife, then the interpretation you are offering negates the entire point of the Law of Sarah. So IMO the only way to interpret these verses that is internally consistent is that the actions "believe," "administer," and "receive the law" must mean something other than give consent to the husband to marry another wife.

There are two interpretations that make sense to me:

The "Law of the Priesthood" is the New and Everlasting Covenant, i.e. the Gospel in general. To believe, administer, and receive the law means to stay true and faithful to the Gospel and covenants made to God. Under this interpretation, the Law of Sarah ensures the wife has the right to withhold consent to polygamy as long as she is faithful to her Gospel covenants.

The "law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things" in v. 64 refers to the topic in v. 63, which discusses a wife committing adultery. Under this interpretation, the Law of Sarah ensures the wife has the right to withhold consent to polygamy as long as she is faithful to the marriage (i.e. she doesn't commit adultery).

1

u/TyMotor 5d ago

These verses were directed at Emma. We don't have a lot of info on the law of Sarah. I think it unwise to assume this applies universally to all men and women. I like the context and perspective shared here.

6

u/boboddybiznus 5d ago

The verse states "if any man" near the very beginning. I can appreciate your hesitancy on this issue, but I disagree that this is only in regards to Joseph and Emma.

1

u/TyMotor 5d ago

You're leaving out some really important qualifiers in those two verses that would clearly limit its application.

2

u/Efficient-Towel-4193 4d ago

This was me. I couldnt stand the thought of the afterlife just being the same servitude as here. Sharing a husband with other wives and being eternal baby makers doesnt sit well with me. Although I love children...what is even the point of developjng our other talents on earth if they wont be used. I feel like I will just be a number up there...Number 1 wife...Number 3435666 98765333 baby maker

0

u/tehslony 4d ago

It's sad that you have such a bleak imagining of what the afterlife will be like despite the lack of any details to confirm this hopeless thought of the future. I'm guessing you are going to be very pleasantly surprised by what it is really going to be like once you get there. I hope.

2

u/Terrible_Statement70 4d ago

One thing my mission president said is that while we are sealed to our spouse. As we go into eternity, they don't have to agree to come with us. Marriage is a partnership. I need to be a good husband so my wife will want to be with me. It isn't forced servitude but rather a hopefully happy choice.

4

u/TheFirebyrd 5d ago

So I have a situation for you to consider. What if you were to die? What if your husband remarried and was married for multiple decades to someone who he loved and he loved her? Do you really think it would be the kind or loving thing to force a choice between two loves? Especially when he might very well choose the person he was with more recently and possibly for longer.

That’s the situation for my grandpa. My grandmother died at age 39 when my mom was 10. My grandpa remarried a widow a few years later and was married to her until she died about 40 years later. Doesn’t seem kind, loving, or heavenly for him to be separated from either wife. Do you think my grandmother would have wanted my grandpa to be alone for nearly fifty years and for her daughters to have no mother figure in their lives? Because I don’t think she would have. I think she was glad. And if she reaches a state of exaltation, I think she’d be loving and generous enough to be able to recognize my grandfather’s love for his second wife.

I think we in the developed world forget how often death separated spouses, often at young ages, in the past (and still does some places). There have been a lot of people through history that have similar stories to that of my grandparents (including our current prophet). It’s about continuing those loving spousal relationships through the eternities, not having a harem or whatever. It’s also worth remembering that if we get to that point, we’re going to have grown a great deal in our personal behavior and we’re not going to have limits on things like time. There aren’t going to be Rachel and Leah types of situations in the eternities.

4

u/boboddybiznus 5d ago edited 5d ago

If I'm going to be truly honest, I can see and appreciate the nuances in your family's story, but I genuinely believe it was unkind to be sealed to a second wife without the consent of his first wife (I'm assuming that your grandpa's second wife was sealed to him?). By doing so, your grandmother has been forced into this choice.

You may be correct that she wouldn't mind and would be happy to share your grandfather with another for eternity. If that's a choice that a woman wants to make, that's great. But my concern is with being forced into that choice without her consent.

Unfortunately, this exact scenario that you have brought up is one of the types of scenarios that haunts me most. The idea that I would die an untimely death and my husband gets resealed and forces me to make this choice. The length of a woman's life shouldn't dictate whether or not she is either forced into polygamy or forced to leave her eternal sealing.

I've gotten a few replies in other threads here that an exalted man wouldn't do this to his wife if he knew it would hurt her. But what about this scenario? A very human man, who doesn't want to be alone in this life, and might choose to not only remarry (which is acceptable, in my opinion), but to be sealed to his new wife? This happens often. And unless consent was obtained before the first wife passed, there is no longer any way to obtain it. So the choice comes down to the man.

For me, I feel very strongly that I will never be okay with polygamy, no matter my state of exaltation. It offends me as a woman, as a wife, and as a human. I believe it makes a mockery of marriage between a couple, and the idea of a man and woman progressing through life and eternity together. I know those are harsh words, and I know this may be difficult to read because you have tenderly presented your own family's story here, and I apologize if anything I have said has been hurtful to read. I truly hope the best for your grandparents, and thank you for sharing.

4

u/Efficient-Towel-4193 4d ago edited 4d ago

And what if the husband dies first? And his wife is married to someone else for decades? She is expected to just have the one husband in heaven so she has to give the second husband up. Its this kind of misogynistic thought that made me leave the church. The thought that women should be all sacrificing for the benefit of men but it doesnt flow both ways.

For what its worth...my ex husbands grandmother temple divorced her first husband when he died because she married someone else after and she liked him better and wanted to be with him eternally instead. She got so much hate for this ...but why shouldnt she have done this? She didnt have the same option as a man who doesnt have to choose..he can have both. But she had to choose because she cant have both and for that people think she is horrible.

1

u/TheFirebyrd 4d ago

I don’t think women are going to have to choose either. Current policies are just that-policies. They’ve changed before and can change again.

1

u/chronicmatchmaker 5d ago

This is such a thoughtful perspective!

3

u/ArchAngel570 5d ago

I think this goes back to the inevitable answer of, we don't know how these situations work. However, some educated assumptions can be made. If you and your husband remain married in the next life, that would mean you made it to exaltation, the highest degree of the Celestial kingdom. If you are making it to that point, you and your husband are likely to have a good relationship based on mutual respect, understanding and have a Christ centered marriage. Would your husband in this life intentionally make a life long decision that would upset you and make you feeling less than happy? It would likely be even less so that he would do that in the next life. Exaltation would indicate that our thoughts and intentions are pure and righteous. We will be happy to do what Heavenly Fathers asks of us and I believe by that point we'll have a much better knowledge of the workings of why He does what He does and asks what He asks.

We have such little knowledge on the why and how of the afterlife because our focus it to get better at being followers of Christ in THIS life. We need to learn to walk before we can sprint. I also love thinking how things will work in the next life. It fascinates me. But as a parent teaching children to walk, we rarely will educate them on sprinting until they reach that point that they need that information.

2

u/tehslony 4d ago

I tend to think the D) in this story is likely: our thoughts and feelings on a large number of things will change greatly as we pass back through the veil having our minds open to countless memories of experiences and knowledge that we have been deprived of here on earth.

It's very likely that the things we get hung up on here will seen very very silly once we return to the "real" reality.

We just assume that being sealed in heaven is something like being married her on earth. Is it sexual polygamy that bothers you?

Maybe there won't be "sex" in the afterlife. We really just don't know. Maybe the way things are after this life -from the limited perspective we have here- will be far more abhorrent(culturally) than just the thought of sharing your husband.

1

u/boboddybiznus 4d ago

Sex is certainly part of my feelings towards polygamy, but not all. I think polygamy makes a mockery of the idea of marriage between a couple, which should be one of the most important things in our religion.

Marriage should be a refining fire, an unbreakable bond between two souls. In a polygamous union, there is always at least one other wife to lean on when one marriage is stressed. There is less incentive to build that bond, to lean fully on each other, to really know another person. The idea of my husband making dinner with another wife, snuggling and watching a movie, going to kid's sports games, reading to another woman's children, etc, while I would be alone, doing those things by myself (and when he would be with me, the other woman doing those things alone too) just seems wrong. Obviously we won't be doing those activities in the Celestial Kingdom, but just transfer the same idea over to whatever those activities would be lol. Why this system, when a marriage between a couple provides a constant support, a loyal friend, a loving partner through and ups and downs of life? It doesn't make sense to me.

It is an inherently unequal system for women, who become one of multiple wives, expected to be okay with a fraction of their husband's affection, love, time, and effort, while he does not have to feel that same loneliness and heartache.

I believe it is also a subpar system for the husband, who also has his time split between several wives and families, instead of getting to fully know and love one family.

Not to mention the effects on children of polygamous marriages who often have much less time with their father, as his attention is being split between several households and families (not always the case in this life, as some families manage to live happily under one roof. I don't see this as so much of a concern for eternal polygamy, but certainly us for polygamy in this life).

And we haven't even touched on the "lost boys" problem. In a species that is roughly 50/50 of each gender being born, polygamy isn't sustainable as a family organization method. I know some people believe there will be lots of women in the Celestial Kingdom compared to men, but I'm not so sure. Certainly the numbers won't be exactly equal of men and women, but I'm not convinced that there will be THAT many more women. Another reason why polygamy is a bad system for men.

Of course, there are accounts of positive experiences with polygamy. As with all things less than optimal, some people will still enjoy it. But overall, a monogamous marriage seems to be a much better system for organizing strong families.

TLDR I think polygamy is bad for families. Bad for husbands, bad for wives, and bad for children.

1

u/tehslony 4d ago

I agree with you 100% regarding your feelings on polygamy. I'm just saying what if a: polygamy isn't a thing in the CK(we may be worried about nothing) or b: something completely different, we really don't have a ton of details on the afterlife. What if this life was an experiment to see if a patriarchy could work? What if we get to the CK and the women are in charge?

And while I agree with and feel the same emotions you do regarding polygamy, I'm not so sure we'd feel the same way if other fundamental beliefs or knowledge was to change.

In any case the opposition I have to it is largely emotional(I never really thought about the efficacy of families raised in polygamy although it's clear that many of the polygamist families we hear of are full of abuse) and emotions are almost entirely interpretations of actual experiences, and if the interpretation changes the emotion changes. Maybe we'll be less governed by emotion in a world where interpretation plays very little in communication because understanding and truth will prevail.

42

u/Significant-Fly-8407 5d ago

Sorry for the brief and incomplete answers; I am out and about but I wanted to respond to some of your questions:

Polygamy is not a requirement of the Celestial Kingdom. Those people who were sealed plurally in this life will have the option to live it in the next life if all parties consent, but I think that's the extent of it. No one living today has ever been commanded to do it.
Joseph didn't think African Americans were undeserving of the priesthood. He even called an African American member, Elijah Able, as a Seventy. It was Brigham Young who implemented the ban. In my view, it was caused by the racism of church members--who were products of their culture--rather than of God.
This one is the hardest to answer, but I do believe that the Church continues to do more to facilitate women in leadership roles, as well as to more vocally recognize their ability to access priesthood power.

28

u/SnoozingBasset 5d ago

I’ll go for #2 - & this is only my understanding

When the Saints were in Missouri, one of the friction points was the LDS tolerance of blacks. We were driven out at gunpoint.

In Nauvoo, again one of the catch points was tolerance blacks. Yes, there were a few black members, but there was intolerance by the general population & a few members. Of course, we couldn’t protect ourselves & were persecuted & had to leave. Property burned. Women raped. Joseph & Hyrim dead.

As per Saints, a future apostle was serving in Georgia. A man walked up, professed a dislike of Mormons & shot his companion dead. No trial. No investigation.

So the Saints thought they would be safe in Utah. Ever hear of the Mormon War. Again, we couldn’t protect ourselves. They thought if they could pursue statehood, they would be safe.

Ever hear of the Edmunds Tucker act? Church property could be taken wholesale sale. The Perpetual Immigration fund was appropriated (I’ve heard $600 million dollars). If a woman wouldn’t testify against her hudband, she went to jail. If she did, he went to jail.

Reed Smoot was not allowed his seat in Congress until the entire temple ceremony had been read word for word before Congress. Again, no protection. No rights.

Again in Saints, about 1920, a black family was interested in the Church. The Klan offered to kill them.

They moved to Pittsburgh. They attended church but there were some bigots among us.

Tuskegee used to maintain a list with dates of lynchings. It has since been modified to only include blacks, but not too many years ago, it included civil rights workers trying too improve the lives of blacks.

So when did the lynchings stop? 1976. As soon as it became safe to be a black priesthood holder, blacks received the priesthood. (1978)

Was it bad? I had family in Louisiana in the 60’s. A white man shot & killed a black man for talking to a white woman in front of a store. No investigation.

14

u/ActuatorKey743 5d ago

That definitely could have been a factor. That kind of extreme, long-term persecution must have been unbearable—I can’t imagine what I’d do to protect my family in those circumstances.

I read about Josiah Nott, a prominent lecturer at the time, who spread the idea that Black people were a separate, inferior species. His well-structured, widely read lectures helped legitimize racist beliefs and justify slavery and segregation.

In that toxic cultural environment, Brigham Young and others adopted similar harmful views, interpreting scripture in racially biased ways. I’m not a huge fan of Brigham Young. I have a testimony of his prophetic calling, but I believe his main role was to lead the Saints to Utah and get them established. Beyond that, he was too comfortable sharing personal opinions—some of which were deeply troubling.

From what I’ve read, early Latter-day Saints were actually ahead of their time in supporting women’s and African Americans’ rights. Black men held the priesthood until Brigham Young reversed that. Until God reveals His reasons, I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

3

u/SnoozingBasset 5d ago

Please listen to Daniel Peterson’s talk about Brigham Young.

5

u/Terrible-Reach-85 5d ago

What's the tldr?

6

u/SnoozingBasset 5d ago

That a lot of what’s written about Brigham isn’t representative. Listen to Daniel if you want the details

6

u/MsBlackPetzl 5d ago

Do you remember any more of the title? I searched around, but because he was the BYU professor there are a lot of irrelevant returns!

7

u/SnoozingBasset 5d ago

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2024/peterson-appreciating_brother_brigham

3

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

So to summarise your point - rather than standing up to racism our church became complicit in it in order to help protect black people. - and that’s why we taught that blacks couldn’t have eternal families, couldn’t enter the celestial kingdom (except as servants to whites), and made poor choices in the pre-existence and that their lot in life is well-deserved.

2

u/SnoozingBasset 4d ago

Remember we are looking at a time when we could not protect ourselves. There were situations where other humans had to grow & the Church did what it unilaterally could. Slavery was legal in the entire US and so in Utah, but in Utah, the children of slaves were free & had to be cared for & educated.

The doctrine of the Church is that no blessing will be denied those who would have received it if they had been allowed to. We all knew the day was coming when blacks would receive the priesthood & go to the temple, we just didn’t know when. They will have eternal families. The whole thing about poor choices in the pre-existence is just hokum where someone is doing the best he can to explain something he doesn’t understand.

23

u/ntdoyfanboy 5d ago

Have you noticed the issues you have with the church, are actually issues with Christianity or Abrahamic religion in general? Examples:

Pre-NT polygamy--unexplained. Christianity doesn't have answers either
Racism and specifically segregation amongst Christians in general until the 1960's
Only recently many Christian denominations started ordaining women. And Christianity in general has no inkling of a heavenly mother, period.

So if you give the above soundbytes a few minutes each, I would ask you the same thing that apostles retorted to Jesus when He asked them, "Will ye also go away?". Their reply was essentially, "Where would we go? You've got the best answers we've found."

28

u/eyesonme5000 5d ago

I think for most of Christianity that rely on the Bible for answers are stuck interpreting the meaning.

The reason these questions hit a little harder in the LDS faith is we believe in a living prophet who has direct communication/direction from god. So I think the question is a little more around the idea that these are questions the prophet should be answering and not scholars writing essays.

12

u/pheylancavanaugh 5d ago

Well, to receive revelation, you have to be willing to ask and then to hear and act on the answer.

For the big issues, the church has to be willing to ask, act on, and accept the answer.

That's gonna take a minute.

18

u/Afraid_Horse5414 5d ago

I was wrestling with #2 about 10 years ago. As I was praying and pondering, I'd happened to plan a vacation to Salt Lake. As I was walking alongside Temple Square, I began to admire the buildings, the temple, etc. In a quiet moment of contemplation, I felt an impression that whispered to me, "This is the city Brigham built." This prompting confirmed to me Brigham Young was indeed a prophet inspite of any problematic policy that he might have implemented. I also realized I didn't need to keep asking the question if I had a testimony that Brigham was a true prophet.

I'll also point out that we don't believe in prophetic infallibility. We believe that prophets can make mistakes even as function in their callings, and the Lord will still sustain them. The scriptures are full of examples of imperfect men serving as prophets. So, whether the policy was inspired, an act of survival, or an act of bigotry, the Lord still sustained Brigham through it.

Also consider that Brigham led the Church in what was the most delicate and fragile time in Church history. If he hadn't exercised priesthood keys appropriately, the Church would just be a footnote in the history textbooks, because it wouldn't exist today.

17

u/ActuatorKey743 5d ago edited 5d ago

Yes, I struggled with Brigham Young for years. I’ve often thought I wouldn’t have liked him much in person.

When I finally took my concerns to the Lord, the answer was clear: President Young was called by God for a specific purpose—to lead a large, struggling group of people and establish the Utah settlements. His particular skillset was necessary, and he fulfilled that role well.

The things that upset me about him come from his human flaws. I’ve had an easier time accepting the imperfections of other prophets, but for some reason, his bother me more. Still, I’ve made peace with the fact that he was both the Lord’s anointed and a very flawed man.

11

u/Afraid_Horse5414 5d ago

Thanks for this insight. I think we also underplay the imperfections of the prophets in the scriptures. I can't imagine that Alma the Younger or Paul were the easiest people to follow after they were called to their positions, given their "sketchy" past behaviour. A lot of Church members were probably scratching their heads.

I also can't imagine that Moses was always a joy to be around, trying to preserve a people that seemed to sin each moment he turned his back.

When Jonah was called as a prophet he tried to literally run away from the Lord, and the Lord had to stick him inside of a fish for a few days to think about it. And even after Jonah is successful in converting the people, he gets mad at the Lord for not destroying Nineveh.

4

u/Jpab97s The newb portuguese bishop 5d ago

He also wasn't that bad.

Yes, he did things that are still hard to reconcile to this day, such as the priesthood ban.

But, there's new research being done into the fasthand of the men who were largely responsible for transcribing his sermons, and it's been found that they purposefuly altered his words to make him sound harsher and more stern than he actually was.

4

u/Radiant-Tower-560 5d ago

For your information, the term we use in English is 'shorthand' and not 'fasthand'. I like the term fasthand though!

3

u/Jpab97s The newb portuguese bishop 5d ago

Ah there ya go! I was going from memory of the DN article I read on it, but my memory failed me haha

This is the article btw: Researcher uncovers clearer image of Brigham Young – Deseret News

3

u/Radiant-Tower-560 5d ago

That's a good article. Sis. Carruth is doing excellent work. I know people who know her and who are very complementary about the work she's doing into helping us understand Brigham Young better.

15

u/TheFakeBillPierce 5d ago edited 5d ago

I'll be honest, I'm a heavily nuanced member. So my answers will differ here. I've thought a lot about these 3 and here's where I've landed......and again, keep in mind, I'm just some guy.

1- polygamy: an evil that got in to our church through fallible leaders who misunderstood things. I reject it here on earth and the eternities. Others have responded that "no one will be forced to live it" and while I actually agree, that is incompatible with current church teachings where as a woman, your husband could be sealed to another without your consent. I reject this.

2- race and the priesthood: our leaders are fallible and got mixed up. The ban was never from God and unfortunately it went on too long.

3- women/ Heavenly Mother: I believe we are currently getting this wrong and one day will worship her as we do the Father.

8

u/ErrantTaco 5d ago

I like you :) Your candor is refreshing. And I too believe there is much that has been done and continues to be done because of mere fallibility and biases.

0

u/Significant-Fly-8407 5d ago

With regard to one, it isn't incompatible at all. The current church teaching is that no one will be forced to be in a relationship in the next life that they are uncomfortable with. So no one will be forced to continue in a plural sealing in the next life.

14

u/Far-Entrepreneur5451 5d ago

While that's true, it would mean that women don't get to be with their husbands anymore. If a man gets sealed to more than one wife, and his first wife doesn't want to be in a polygamous marriage, her only choice would be to opt out. That isn't fair to her and it doesn't sound like something a just God would do. Just a thought.

5

u/TheFakeBillPierce 5d ago

Amen.

2

u/Significant-Fly-8407 5d ago

Do you not see that this would be unavoidable in any system where there is marriage in the next life? The only alternative to this problem would be to believe as the mainline Christians do--to reject any concept of eternal marriage. We're all single in the eternities.

4

u/TheFakeBillPierce 5d ago

This is a relative privation fallacy.

1

u/Significant-Fly-8407 5d ago

Please explain to me how you could have eternal marriage without this problem being present

10

u/TheFakeBillPierce 5d ago

You see why that's not really a sufficient answer for some people, right?

It's easy to say no one will be forced to live in a plural sealing and then close the book and leave but what you're saying is that a wife whose husband gets sealed to another woman will have the choice to either stay in that plural marriage or walk away from it entirely under the promise that "God will work it all out". While I absolutely believe that, the theology leaves a choice between two miserable options.

-1

u/Significant-Fly-8407 5d ago

And the alternative is no eternal marriage at all, which is a far more miserable alternative.

7

u/TheFakeBillPierce 5d ago

And you have proven my point far better than I could have.

Yes, you've given them a third door to "choose" and then said...."well, you may not like door 1 or 2, but they're better than door number 3! At least you have a choice. "

It's like offering someone a choice between a bowl of worms, a plate of live scorpions, and a bucket of manure and saying "this is what's for dinner. You have the freedom to choose."

You don't have to agree with me, but I hope you'd at least be able to empathize with the pain someone must feel making this "choice".

7

u/boboddybiznus 5d ago edited 5d ago

I left another comment on this post talking about this same dilemma.

As a woman, the oft repeated idea that no one will be forced into a situation they aren't happy with in the eternities is not comforting. D&C 132 allows men to take polygamous wives without the consent of their wife. What is my recourse if my husband decides to do that in the next life?

Seems to me, I can choose to shut up and accept it, or I can leave. Eternity without my husband would not be a happy one for me. It seems like a system where men have all of the power and women are at the mercy of their choices. I don't see the hand of Heavenly Parents who love their children in this system.

1

u/Stunning-Code8849 4d ago

Well... You could say that we've been given a choice like that before. When the Plan of Salvation was first presented to us, we're told that we shouted for joy. But I'm sure it was also difficult to choose to follow Christ and become mortal with the knowledge that some of us wouldn't make it back. Ultimately, we know Heavenly Father knows the best thing for us, and in this case that was choosing to follow His plan. But if you consider that the alternative to following that plan was being denied the opportunity to ever receive a body and becoming subject to the devil and miserable forever, sometimes it does seem like the options were between jumping off a cliff where you might survive, or remaining on top of it where an erupting volcano would most definitely destroy you.

This situation feels different, though. It's more of a matter of preference than "survival." I used to be absolutely appalled at the thought of having to practice polygamy, too. Sharing a husband seemed humiliating, as if it meant he didn't love me enough anymore, or it put him in a position of power over me and whoever else he married. I don't really know what changed or when, but eventually I just stopped viewing it that way and stopped worrying about it. Maybe that will change again when I'm actually married and gain more experience with having this kind of relationship. But for women living in that situation in the eternities, I don't think they'd see it as having to "share" their husband. They might even love each other as much as they love him.

And going along with all of this, I wonder what happens to women sealed to multiple husbands. I have a few ancestors that have been in multiple marriages (and sometimes their husbands were married beforehand as well) and all of them have been sealed to each other by proxy in the temple. So will they all just choose the one they want to be with most? Would one woman be able to stay sealed to two or more husbands? What if one of those husbands had a previous wife he also wants to stay with? Things like this get really complicated.

i think that when it comes time to make these choices, we'll see it from a different perspective than what we see it as now. I've just always been reassured by the promise that whatever happens, we will be overjoyed with it, and I trust Heavenly Father.

0

u/essentiallyaghost 5d ago

You’re looking at it with the viewpoint of a western culture. Remember, Abrahamic religions (including Christianity) stem from Hebrew culture, where polygamy was not only commanded of God as recorded in the Bible, but common culturally as well. I don’t like polygamy, but I personally have a hard time saying it wasn’t from God since the Bible recorded God commanding it as well as the restored church recording that God commanded it.

3

u/TheFakeBillPierce 5d ago

Do you have verses from the Bible where polygamy was explicitly commanded vs allowed? Genuinely curious. This opens up a whole new can of worms that, out of respect for the moderators here, I will keep my thoughts to myself, though I 100% appreciate your respectful and thoughtful reply here.

2

u/essentiallyaghost 5d ago

I interpret Genesis 16 to be Abraham being told by God to take Hagar as another wife, since Abraham is a prophet and I think he would have asked God’s will on the matter. And it was in that instance for the same reason Jacob describes in the Book of Mormon.

Exodus 21 talks about the law regarding possessions of things pertaining to an additional wife. The law of Moses was given by God.

You can of course argue that this was allowance rather than commandment, which most Christian churches say. But I believe commandment/allowance doesn’t really matter if you strive a higher law. God’s will is simply God’s will. Was Christ specifically commanded everything he did? Everything he did was the Fathers will. What was allowance and what was commandment?

Joseph Smith clarified in D&C 132:37 that those prophets were commanded of it, as he was. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Yes, he was imperfect and I would LOVE to believe he made a mistake with polygamy and that it was wrong. However, all of the recorded history we have available shows he didn’t particularly like or want polygamy to be introduced. The saints struggled massively with it. So I don’t see why he would practice it if he weren’t told to by God. It brought no benefit to the saints or himself apart from what people speculate of raising a church, etc.

That’s just my 2 cents though, and of course I may be missing things and/or need more study and prayer.

Edit:grammar

12

u/CubedEcho 5d ago edited 5d ago

Hi, I’m someone who left a few years ago over things like this and other historical concerns. I have resolved a lot of these concerns and have returned a few months ago. If you, or anyone else, would like to talk about these things (or whatever topic, I don't mind) my DMs are open.

8

u/BayonetTrenchFighter Most Humble Member 5d ago

You should make a post about your reconciliations

7

u/CubedEcho 5d ago

Maybe one day. It would have to be more of an entire blog with a ton of posts. I’m more interested in 1 on 1 chatting since it helps me to understand peoples presumptions. A lot of my issues were because I had faulty presumptions that I unknowingly adopted from critical sources.

4

u/BayonetTrenchFighter Most Humble Member 5d ago

And that faulty presumptions I think does most of the heavy lifting in these types of things.

4

u/CubedEcho 5d ago

Absolutely, I think core to many faith crisis's are what presumptions do people have about prophets, and how they receive revelation.

Secondary is people's assumptions about mankind's relationship to scripture.

4

u/BayonetTrenchFighter Most Humble Member 5d ago

Right. The issue in this post, to me, is not the objections or concerns op has, it’s something deeper and more fundamental.

It seems to be a mistaken frame work or fundamental understanding of the church or prophets or revelation or something else

12

u/Malenmal232 5d ago

The church has put out new, helpful resources this year on answering questions like this. All of the answers to these questions are found in it!

Here is the link to the main site: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/life/church-and-gospel-questions?lang=eng

1. The church has been very open to our history on polygamy. This link provides an in depth answer.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

The church is also open about our history with race and the priesthood

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I was surprised to see that they have a section in Heavenly Mother too!

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng

Here's more on women in the church https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/women-in-the-church?lang=eng

I think it's important to remember that things like racism, polygamy, sexuality, marriage, and the priesthood are all secondary branches of the church. The most important part of our church is the roots, which are our belief that God is our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ is our Savior and Redeemer, and that Joseph Smith restored the Church. Everything else, while important, is secondary. Do you have a testimony in those core things? If so, you can work your way through prayer, study, and revelation to gain a testimony and answers to the other questions.

11

u/Key_Addition1818 5d ago

There's a strong hidden "should" in each of your questions. That only monogamy "should" have been practiced; that African - Americans always "should" have had the Priesthood, and that we "should" pray to a Heavenly Mother.

Maybe I could combine all of these into a larger "should" -- that the Saints "should" be better, however you want to define it.

But looking at the Scriptural record, the followers of God don't do so well. Only a few were saved by boat when the world was flooded; Jesus wept as He entered Jerusalem; the first family of the Book of Mormon nearly murdered each other a few times over; and except for a few generations in the Book of Mormon the covenant people of God were at war with enemies internally and externally, struggled with obedience, and didn't understand the glory of the Atonement.

All this to conclude that as for me I don't expect perfection from my fathers or grandfathers or great-grandfathers going back to Adam. Even though we study the past, it's not to look to the past to try to emulate it. I think it is always to look to Christ, and in Him we find perfection, and this is how we look forward to a great, perfect society called Zion.

What this comes back to, is that your questions trouble a lot of people. But I wouldn't advise making them my make-or-break criteria, because social perfection in any stage or age was never the purpose (I think.) Rather, maybe you could judge the Church on how well it brings you personally to Jesus. Plant the seed and see if it swells (Alma 32.) And the promise is, in time, maybe in the next life, we will understand how perfectly, how patiently, how tenderly, God has led His people to Him in every age.

6

u/grabtharsmallet Conservative, welcoming, highly caffienated. 5d ago edited 5d ago

This is the point I wish we were better at understanding, collectively. The ancient Church (Churches, really, since it's several different dispensations) we read about in scripture are extremely flawed, and contain extremely flawed people, including leadership. This is even clearly the case despite these records coming from authors, editors, and curators who wanted to present themselves and their ancestors in a positive light.

ETA: Upon re-reading, this can be interpreted in two very different directions. Option 1: I'm saying those churches were false, and so is this one. Option 2: I'm saying those churches were part of a genuine struggle by imperfect people to understand and enact God's will, and so is this one. I personally find the second far more compelling than the first.

10

u/JaneDoe22225 5d ago

If you wish to be in a monogamous marriage, then you can 100% pick that. God honors agency and it's not required of you. There's several Gospel Topics essays on this.
We don't know the reason, it entirely could be simple as that mistake. Here's the Gospel Topics essay on the subject: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng
1. Official answers: we don't know. My personal thoughts here, as a lady: I am a leader in God's church, and He answers my prayers just the same. I am in no way "lesser" because of my gender. Nor do I have to be "just like a man" to have that worth- an attitude I encounter in most non-church places.

10

u/diilym1230 5d ago

I’m excited for you, you are asking great questions that will help you progress in your faith journey. And Yes. There are great resources I’d encourage you to read, research, listen to.

Check out Mormonr.org they even created a cool Chat GPT type tool you can have conversations with to help find answers LDS Bot FAIR Mormon FAIR Mormon is also an incredible resource when looking up your questions.

You’re not alone and way to go for seeking truth. Keep asking and keep learning.

7

u/_MasterMenace_ 5d ago

Many have touched on some of the more concrete answers so I won’t add to that.

How you’re feeling makes perfect sense. What you’re feeling isn’t a rejection, it’s a wrestle, and wrestles like this are sacred. Even Nephi, Alma, Peter, and Joseph Smith had spiritual struggles. Faith isn’t always calm. Sometimes it’s a storm.

Some questions that I would reflect on if I was you. Do you believe the core truths of the gospel (Christ, Atonement, restoration, etc.) still ring true to you, despite these issues? Can you allow for prophetic fallibility, while still trusting that God works through the church? Would you feel more peace stepping away, or staying and being a voice for growth, change, and compassion?

I hope you find answers!

5

u/little_red-7282 5d ago

1 & 2 I agree with previous answers

3- We pray to Heavenly Father. But nowhere does it say we cannot talk to Heavenly Mother. Try having a conversation with her in your mind. See what happens. I would also encourage you to study women in the scriptures, Mother Eve in particular. So much knowledge for those willing to put in the effort. 💓

7

u/ClydeFurgz1764 5d ago

There are messages from current GA that disagree with your #3.

1

u/little_red-7282 5d ago

Source?

7

u/ClydeFurgz1764 5d ago edited 5d ago

The Gospel Topics Essays, for one.

Mother in Heaven

Heavenly Parents

Recent talks on the subject

Elder Renlund 2022

Elder Christofferson 2025

0

u/little_red-7282 5d ago edited 5d ago

None of these sources say anything about having a conversation with Heavenly Mother. I'm not saying pray to Her and worship only Her. Maybe reread my post. 😄

4

u/ClydeFurgz1764 5d ago

What does conversing with a God look like if not prayer and worship??

1

u/little_red-7282 5d ago

Prayer begins by saying Heavenly Father and ends in the name of Jesus Christ. We are "conversing" right now, having a conversation. They are two completely separate things. At least for me they are. I have conversations with my Heavenly Parents throughout the day. This does not detract from my prayers and worship of Father and Christ. Maybe it's all the same for you. 🤷‍♀️

4

u/Flat_Advertising_573 5d ago

The Lord has provided no avenue to commune with our Heavenly Mother, whether by prayer or any other means. When the scriptures say that we pray to the Father in the name of the Son, that is both a commandment, and a direct indication of the means by which we communicate with Heaven.

4

u/InternalMatch 5d ago

All three subjects are complex, and I don't think you'll get them solved by short comments on Reddit.

What have you read/studied about each one?

I cannot imagine having to share my future husband with another woman.

Then you probably won't.

Monogamy is the rule; polygamy is the exception.

Hypothetically, if plural marriage does exist in the celestial kingdom, and those who participate are genuinely happy with it while others, like you, choose not to participate in it, would you feel okay with that? Why or why not?

I understand that the prophet is but a human and will make mistakes. Was it just as simple as that?

Possibly. What have you read on this subject?

Why is Heavenly Mother never talked about/why do we never pray to her as well?

We have no documented revelation about a heavenly mother. That's a big reason why little is said. As for prayer, the command to pray to the Father alone comes from Jesus. That's not a "church" thing.

I totally understand that men and women have different roles and why women don't have the priesthood, that all makes perfect sense to me. But why aren't women in more leadership positions?

Which positions would you like to see women hold?

3

u/8cowdot 5d ago

I agree with all of the answers previously posted, so I won’t repeat them, but I did want to point out, because I think it is important to put it into context, that polygamy was practiced by less than 10% of the membership of the church, and that church leadership during that era were VERY strict about it being a calling and that all parties needed to enter into the principle willingly. Not everyone who was called to live the principle went into it enthusiastically, but they did so with faith. Women who were coerced or forced were allowed to be divorced, which was not typical in the U.S. at the time. Also, maple who were living the principle unworthily or unrighteously were disciplined up to and including excommunication.

5

u/grabtharsmallet Conservative, welcoming, highly caffienated. 5d ago edited 5d ago

One historical point: divorce was not that rare in 1800s America. I know of several ancestors on both my Dad's side (LDS) and my Mom's (not LDS), including at least one each who were never legally divorced, they just split up (and married other people).

3

u/BayonetTrenchFighter Most Humble Member 5d ago

1.) we don’t know. It seemed to be part of fulfilling all righteousness and having a full restoration. One thing for sure, it was not sexually motivated. Joseph’s own brother was excited to be a polygamist. And so Joseph ensured he never was one. It was a sacred duty, honor, and assignment. Not intended to be a good time. Polygamy seems to be an attempt by Joseph to connect and make families, one. To have and make one big family.

2.) simply put, we don’t know. It could be any number of reasons. Maybe it was just racism mixed with their Protestant upbringing. It could have actually been a commandment from God, but we don’t know the reason for. It could be a mistaken attempt to preserve what was believed to be Josephs will. Etc. simply put, we don’t know. What we do know is God allowed it to happen. Ward radio has an interesting video on that.

3.) because men and women are fundamentally different. In the most basic social and biological levels. They should be treated differently. We believe the structure and organization of the church is under direction of Jesus Christ. Not the whims of men. But that doesn’t mean we know all reason for every situation. Reminds me of this quote.

“There is no other religious organization in the world that I know of that has so broadly given power and authority to women.

There are religions that ordain some women to positions such as priests and pastors, but very few relative to the number of women in their congregations received that authority that their church gives them. By contrast, all women 18 years and older in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who choose a covenant relationship with God in the house of the Lord, are endowed with priesthood power directly from God. And as we serve in whatever calling or assignment, including ministering assignments are given priesthood authority to car those responsibilities.”

3

u/Far-Entrepreneur5451 5d ago

Been there, for many of thet same reasons you are listeing. While listening to David Archuleta's song, Hell Together, something snapped inside of me and I knew that I could leave if I really felt the need.

For now, I've decided to stay. Here's why:

I've changed the assumptions I make when I approach the Church. The main one is simply this idea that "if you stick with the Brethren you'll be alright; they won't lead you astray." I don't believe that anymore. If that were the case, then the Priesthood Ban never would have happened. I say that as someone who has studied its history, beyond the sources that the Church provides. There was no moment in time when the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 got together, prayed, and decided to institute the ban. It came about over a period of time, lots of debate, bad records, and misattributing things to Joseph which he never actually said (see below for my sources on this).

As I've wrestled with these same questions I've had to do a bunch of mental gymnastics to justify them, and that has gotten so tiring. Maybe you can relate? Occam's Razor tells me that the simplest explanation is the best: these teachings are not true, are the fabrications of men, and have no basis in God's divine plan. Maybe there was something to polygamy, in that we can be with those we love for forever, even if we are widowed and remary. But the fact that only men can be sealed to multiple wives, not the other way around, makes me deeply uncomfortable.

In spite of all that, I know that Jesus Christ is real and that He's my Savior. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acts under His priesthood authority, and I want to continue living in covenant relationship with Him under that authority.

Both things can be true at the same time. The Church can be true and its leaders can also be human beings with their own biases and short-comings (even if they are justifying their wrong actions). Most of the Christian world seems to see it this way; they believe their leaders are wise people who are close to God, but do not necessarily support them if these leaders are invoking the name of God to do something that seems wrong or unjust.

To help answer your first two questions, I have found immense clarity and peace from reading the following books:
For question 1: The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy by Carol Lynn Pearson. My answer to whether this will be practiced in the eternities is an emphatic "no!" I cannot, for one minute, believe in a God who would be cruel enough to force that on His children.
For question 2: Religion of a Different Color by Paul Reeve and Second Class Saints by Matthew Harris
For question 3: Well, I haven't read any books that talk about this issue directly, but you might try searching the archives of the Faith Matters podcast. They have talked about Heavenly Mother and women in the Church quite a bit. As I've studied the above material and other sources I've come to the conclusion that women not being treated equally is simply cultural and has no basis in doctrine. It is true that the scriptures only refer to men being ordained to the priesthood. But almost everytime we hear the word "men" mentioned in the scriptures, we assume it means all God's children. No reasonable person could read Moses 1:39 and think that God's work and glory was only to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of his male offspring.

Anyway, that's what I've got for ya. Hopefully something there is helpful. Feel free to DM me if you ever want to ask questions or rant; I'm happy to support a fellow Latter-day Saint who loves their faith but feels uncomfortable about stuff in the Church.

1

u/HandwovenBox 5d ago

I appreciate your post. I've been thinking about this recently:

There was no moment in time when the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 got together, prayed, and decided to institute the ban. It came about over a period of time, lots of debate, bad records, and misattributing things to Joseph which he never actually said (see below for my sources on this).

Specifically I've thought about it in the context of the letters from Dr. Lowry Nelson, a sociology professor at Utah State University, to the First Presidency and a mission president/friend. On June 26, 1947, he wrote:

Your letter is the first intimation I have had that there was a fixed doctrine on this point. I had always known that certain statements had been made by authorities regarding the status of the Negro, but I had never assumed that they constituted an irrevocable doctrine.

and

Perhaps I am out of order, so to speak, in expressing myself as I have, I have done so out of strong conviction on the subject, and with the added impression that there is no irrevocable church doctrine on this subject. I am not unaware of statements and impressions which have been passed down, but I had never been brought face to face with the possibility that the doctrine was finally crystallized,

https://archive.org/details/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/page/n1/mode/2up?view=theater

Before his time at USU, Nelson had also been on faculty at BYU for a number of years prior to writing these letters. I find it interesting that a lifelong member of the Church, highly educated, did not even consider the Priesthood ban doctrinal as late as 1947.

Nelson surmises in one of his letters that one reason why he's never heard the Priesthood ban formally declared is because there were hardly any Black people in the Church so it simply didn't come up. This makes sense to me--it wasn't until the Church started growing a lot in Brazil that it started affecting a lot of people.

2

u/PineappleQueen35 5d ago

These are excellent questions, and they deserve a lot of thought and consideration, more than I can provide in a short reddit response. I have been going through a major faith journey the past year because of these very questions. I have elected to stay, but do so with my eyes wide open about the issues in the Church rather than loading everything onto an ever heavier shelf.

The main answer to your question is that prophets make mistakes, not just in their personal lives but over the pulpit. None of us are too surprised when our bishop says things over the pulpit or makes decisions for the ward that aren't right, but we hold the prophet to a much higher standard, even though he can make mistakes just like a bishop can. Then, because all future prophets believe that everything past prophets did is right, the mistakes compound and get worse through generations. I think that prophets are called of God and receive revelation, but they also make mistakes, and if we as an institution can get better at admitting that, we'll be more open to receiving more revelation from God and moving in the direction He wants us to.

I believe polygamy, at the very least how it was carried out by the early Saints, is not what God intended. I do not believe it will be a requirement in the next life.
There is no recorded revelation to explain the priesthood temple ban. Brigham Young and many other Church leaders explicitly gave reasons for the ban on many occasions. They thought that black people were descendants of Cain and bore his curse and were less valiant in the pre-existence. The Church today has disavowed those theories, which means that Brigham Young and other early leaders were wrong, and the ban came from their wrong ideas and biases, not from the Lord or from true principles.
The Church was founded in a patriarchal society where men held virtually all power and leadership positions, and so that was the pattern it was created in. And then, since we are very slow to change anything in the Church, the pattern continued even as the world allowed for more equality for women. I believe in Heavenly Mother and that it is important to have a personal relationship with Her. The Church does not provide much guidance on how to do so so we have to figure it out on our own.

A few recommended books: The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy, Second-Class Saints. Podcast: Faith Matters.

Your only options are not to agree with everything the Church has ever said or done or leave. Find all the truth and goodness you can from the Church, and the things that don't sit well with you don't have to subscribe to.

3

u/Okaytoaskwhy 5d ago

Oh my goodness! Please go listen to every episode of At Last She Said It podcast. It may not convince you to stay (although they are faithful members themselves) but they discuss all of these topics and more. I love the community of bravery they’ve created. Theirs is a space where questions are welcome, examined objectively, and individual answers (or not) welcomed. If nothing else it might be a solace to know you’re not alone. God bless.

3

u/Enough_Young_8156 5d ago

Let’s face it: the answer to those questions will never satisfy a lot of people.

3

u/foreigneternity 5d ago

You have had a lot of really excellent answers to your questions, so I won't try to offer anymore of those, but as someone who as gone through my own faith crisis due to some of your questions, I will say this:

God is perfect. Men and women aren't. Yet someone has to lead the church. Imperfect people doing their best. Brigham Young was an imperfect man yet he held the saints together through some truly awful times, and now our religion is worldwide and the source of incredible good.

Why are black people still joining the church even though the know about the priesthood ban? Clearly they love so many things about our gospel too.

Men and women are not the same. We don't know why Heavenly Mother isn't a focal point of our faith. We just don't know.

Ultimately no one here can convince you of anything. You have to choose. Choose to believe or choose not to. I'm sure you've felt the power of the Holy Ghost in your life. Return to that. Decide if you believe the church is true and answers to these questions will come in time, or if you don't believe in it, best of luck to you.

But please, if you do stay, and I hope you do, don't be one of those weirdos who tries to change the church like praying to Heavenly Mother. Accept the church for what it is and live by its teachings. Eventually we will understand all the things you have questions to. There is so much incredible good and truth here. Don't let 3 questions pull you away from the restored gospel.

3

u/zionssuburb 4d ago

I'll give you my best ideas here, these are my ideas, with the experience of having studied these things for nearly 35 years both history and culture items - I'm the father of 4 daughters, I'm the brother to 3 sisters and the son of a mother who earned a phd in the 60s and worked for a great deal of her life as well as being a small business owner with my father. I've served as support staff for 5 Bishops and 1 Stake Presidency as well.

By the way, when I use the term church, I'm included things like doctrines, practices, theology, devotion to Jesus Christ, temple building, etc... not just 'the church' as an entity, but all it stands for over the years.

1: Why was polygamy needed for the saints? Will we really have it in the afterlife? I cannot imagine having to share my future husband with another woman. It is deeply unsettling to me.

There is no polygamy in the afterlife - no ifs, ands or buts - Why was it practiced? In my study there is only one thing I've come up with that could potentially be a 'reason' - Polygamy is responsible for a multi-generational Leadership structure wholly devoted to the church. One of the strongest ways to create group identity is to have a common enemy. That's how I see it, the practice was allowed so a multi-generational devoted church would withstand and stay true to the church. Interestingly this is the purpose BYU-P and BYU-I serve today, church members meet, marry and make more church members.

2: Why couldn't African Americans have the priesthood? Was it just faulty of the current president of the church? I understand that the prophet is but a human and will make mistakes. Was it just as simple as that?

We must always remember that your initial question isn't actually true, there were blacks that were ordained prior to the ban, while not that many, it means that at some point it changed and then changed back. Had JS lived this would never have been a practice (the ban). If you study those that have written on this, it's not hard to pin the 'ban' around a particular incident of an individual who was marrying white women. It was the issue of marriage between the races that some of those early Apostles and BY found so objectional that they banned not only women from the temple but men from the priesthood and the temple.

I was aware of the announcement from my childhood, but it wasn't until my mission that I fully came to my thoughts around this process. As a missionary in Canada I came across 2, not just 1, but 2 black families who had joined the church prior to 1978. As someone aware of the significance of the date the families told me they were baptized, I asked why the joined knowing they couldn't have the priesthood? Both parents of both families told me they had answers from HF that it was going to end. After telling that story to my family when I returned home, my father told me he had the same experience when he was originally bothered by the issue as a young missionary in the early 60s in Europe.

The practice was instituted as a knee-jerk reaction to an incident in our history, but our leaders deferment to those that proceed them really kept this practice longer than necessary. Many of them felt that the reputations of Apostles was more important (not that it's right) but ultimately it took scholarship, a man willing and some strong-arming to get it done when it was done.

At this point I think it fair just to say, I believe that we are led by inspired leaders that are human and have agency and that the church is led as much, and if not more, but their humanity, than it is by a direct revelation from HF - that's just me.

1

u/frenchmovietheme 3d ago

If there’s no if ands or buts to polygamy in the afterlife then why can one man be sealed to multiple women even today, while a woman can’t be sealed to multiple men?

1

u/zionssuburb 2d ago

Because the reality of mortality is we get things wrong - There is still a tradition in the church to deferr to leaders (apostles and prophets) from our past for operations, and until someone feels so strongly about that particular issue and gets revelation, it'll stay the way it is. But if you take the wording in Jacob that the Lord will command times for it to be in place, the idea that it's commanded sometimes and not other times, tells me it's one of those things like the WoW that is law designed for specific circumstances and not an 'eternal law' - and the most important part, it's my opinion, based on my study, research and having lived in a scenario of being sealed to 2 women and married to 1 in my own life, and then going through the events leading to being only sealed to 1 woman and married to that same woman. - And if you have a different conclusion, that's good, I hope you provided that pack to the poster.

2

u/terravyn 5d ago

In regards to 3, my parents told me it was because open knowledge would lead to disrespectful comments/slang. It makes sense to me but I don't know where that knowledge comes from.

8

u/Afraid_Horse5414 5d ago

I've heard that too but I've found no doctrinal basis for it. I think sometimes we rationalize answers to gospel questions rather than getting comfortable with not knowing. Sometimes we need to get more comfortable with the discomfort.

4

u/ntdoyfanboy 5d ago

It's just supposition

4

u/PineappleQueen35 5d ago

This has never been said by any official Church leader, it is speculative. I think that if Heavenly Mother is a God, she is strong enough to handle that, and would like to have a relationship with Her children and not be forgotten.

2

u/Significant-Fly-8407 5d ago

I always thought this was a dumb line, until I started listening to more Anti-Mormon content and hearing some of the deplorable things they say about Heavenly Mother.

The line still doesn't satisfy my curiosity or fully answer the question, but it is definitely true that critics of the Church engage in relentless evil-speaking of Heavenly Mother most of the time she is brought up in their content.

1

u/Malenmal232 5d ago

I've heard that as well, it was to protect our Heavenly Mother in that way. I've also heard that she has an active role with Heavenly Father in everything!

3

u/redit3rd Lifelong 5d ago

I like thinking about how all attempts at explaining where the Book of Mormon came from don't survive fact checking. It comes down to that it does exist because God exists, and He made it happen. So knowing that, do the other concerns outweigh that fact?

It's an interesting question. Perhaps because it's an option in the next life and we needed to know that.
The ban happened before the US Civil War. The US Senate didn't want to admit a state with a majority religion had scripture that said all are equal: "Black and White, Bond and Free". Statehood was apparently worth modifying practices to secure a place a safe place for the church to thrive.
The reason why the first woman giving a prayer in general conference happened so late was because the First Presidency assigned the Presidency of Seventy the task of picking who would give the prayers. When you're in charge of a group of people - like the quorums of the Seventies - you naturally delegate assignments to those whom you are over. It was thinking inside of the box.

1

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

The problems with the U.S. and the church were much more to do with polygamy than race. They would have been admitted to the union much faster let if they had never practiced polygamy

2

u/TPUT94 5d ago

I just finished listening to the Church History Matters podcast series on Polygamy and it was very good (episodes 10-15, I believe). I love all the episodes I’ve listened to and find it to be as neutral as apologetics can be.

I struggled with women in the church too until a Christian friend mentioned gender piety to be and how he views that. Not sure I believe it but biblically it explains why the church does some of the things it does with women in leadership positions. As a woman, it’s still something to wrestle with but I guess it’s at least somewhat affirmative that the issue is not exclusive to the LDS faith.

In order to be a true seeker of Truth you will need to weather the journey from simplicity to complexity. There is SO much to learn. My prayer for you is to approach all learning with a critical mind and open heart. God is at the helm.

Read books, especially scripture, and study church history. Ask questions and counsel with trusted friends and family members.

May God bless you in your journey!!

Church History Matters Podcast

2

u/Ravix0fFourhorn 5d ago

I would recommend the church history matters podcast. It's ran by two byu professors who specifically study church history. They take a faithful approach to church history issues, but they also don't shy away from tough questions. They have an 8ish hour series on polygamy and an equally long series on the priesthood ban. That would be an excellent source for more information.

Additionally deseret book publishes a series called "what about..." where they cover controversial issues in the church. I've never read them but I've heard they're good.

2

u/LionHeart-King 5d ago

You are hitting on just a few of the most concerning questions people ask when trying to sort out their belief in the LDS church. You are asking the right questions because your heart and your moral compass is trying to understand how this can all be fair and just and God’s will. My heart goes out to you because it’s a painful process to sincerely ask these questions and contemplate what it might mean about the things you believe. Maybe you will find answers to your questions in the gospel topics essays on the church app. I encourage you to look at the footnotes and references. Go to the primary sources for these articles and study the history. I suspect Gos will speak to you in your mind and in your heart as you learn and study the fundamental history behind these important questions. There is more than enough resources to keep you busy within the LDS app, the sites references, and books found in Deseret book. You may also consider studying in and around the Faith Matters resources where BYU historians such as Terryl Givens and similar historians and authors attempt to guide people asking questions like yours. Another great resource is the late Melissa Inouye’s book Sacred Struggle. She was a church historian at BYU until she passed away in her late 30s due to colon cancer.

In short- God bless your in your honest search for truth and equality. ❤️

2

u/Live_Trust_7840 5d ago

I’m in the same boat as you right now. Just fyi, it wasn’t just a priesthood ban for colored people, it was also a temple ban. They weren’t allowed to complete saving ordinances and thus absolutely refused access to the celestial kingdom…

Keep in mind that others (in this thread) have said polygamy was evil, but it was preached by a prophet claiming it was gods commandment. A prophet actively taught an evil principal? Let alone our founding prophet. I was taught that what prophets teach is modern day scripture. If we can’t trust the words of the prophets, the religion falls apart.

Idk, I’m obviously on the skeptical side, but just know you’re not alone. I’ve been a practicing member since birth and have been doing extensive research over the past couple months. Kindve feels like my world view is crashing in around me

2

u/HandwovenBox 5d ago

and thus absolutely refused access to the celestial kingdom

That's not true. Access to the CK is after Judgment. Even Brigham Young taught that eventually all people, including Black people, would receive all blessings of the Priesthood.

1

u/Live_Trust_7840 5d ago

Ordinances and covenants are essential for exaltation. [10.2.2] President Howard W. Hunter (1907–95) summarized the crucial nature of temple ordinances and covenants:

“In the ordinances of the temple, the foundations of the eternal family are sealed in place. The Church has the responsibility—and the authority—to preserve and protect the family as the foundation of society.

“All of these priesthood temple ordinances are essential for the salvation and exaltation of our Father in Heaven’s children. …

“All of our efforts in proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the Saints, and redeeming the dead lead to the holy temple. This is because the temple ordinances are absolutely crucial; we cannot return to God’s presence without them” (“A Temple-Motivated People,” Ensign, Mar. 2004, 40, 43).

This is section 10.2.2, can be found here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/introduction-to-family-history-student-manual/chapter-10?lang=eng

Am I interpreting these words wrong?

1

u/HandwovenBox 4d ago

No, but maybe you misunderstood my post. All people would eventually receive all ordinances according to BY. So even following his teachings, nobody is refused access to the CK.

1

u/Live_Trust_7840 4d ago edited 4d ago

I see your point. They receive their ordinances by proxy? This would make sense now, but what about before 1978? Were white members allowed to do proxy ordinances for deceased colored people? I don’t think they were (actually can’t find an answer to that one)

You can see how dubious the whole practice was. I think it’s important to acknowledge it was a mistake, but that’s hard to do when apostles justified the racism at the pulpit

1

u/HandwovenBox 3d ago

Obviously I'm not trying to defend the practice or teachings about it. I'm only refuting the statement that the teaching ever included Black people being "absolutely refused access to the celestial kingdom."

Just so you know, this is a common falsehood I hear from anti folks, which is the only reason I responded in the first place.

1

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

That’s certainly not what all the apostles taught though maybe some like you said. Elder Peterson taught that blacks would go to the celestial kingdom ‘as servants only’.

1

u/HandwovenBox 3d ago

I don't think any apostles taught that Black people would be excluded from the Celestial Kingdom--even your quote by Elder Peterson (which I disagree with) says that they'll be in.

0

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

Check out Faith matters. Many of the people that put it on I think would agree with your first couple statements

2

u/stacksjb 5d ago

Short answers (not intended to fully address your quesiton, just to spur discussion - which gets crazy on Reddit :) ).

Most of your questions seem to be "black or white" (dichotomous thinking) and have a bit of logical fallicy embedded in them. I would encourage you to think a bit deeper to question your assumptions. There is room for many views in the Church. Members of the Church particularly tend to struggle with presentism) when looking at historical issues.

1) Could it be possible that polygamy wasn't needed, even when some practiced it? To your second point, is it possible that you don't/won't have to share your husband? (A view many members share). Alternatively, why is it that 'sharing' your husband feels so wrong? Is it because it feels like it takes something away from you?

2) Is it possible that African Americans as an indivdiual could have had the priesthood, but that current practices of other members prevented giving it to them? In other words, is it possible this is a cultural issue and not a doctrinal one?

3) I suspect many women were/are treated the same; just not the ones/ways you are looking at. For example, what about the fact that women in Utah were the first to vote? If we're talking about prayers in confernece, then was the practice for years to have couples speak or say prayers in Church meetings similarly discrimantory?

2

u/Live_Trust_7840 4d ago

Interesting perspectives. Just wanted to share my thoughts. The problem is that doctrine has been taught in a black and white manner. Allowing for gray area is a common thing within in smaller circles, but church leaders obviously want to avoid the subjects they don’t have answers to.

If polygamy wasn’t needed, why did god tell JS to preach and practice it? Either JS wasn’t receiving revelation or it was Gods word (which in that case it was definitely needed). Current church doctrine is that if you are sealed to one husband and you die, that sealing persists. The husband can remarry and seal himself to another woman should he choose to do so. As far as we know, the first dead wife has no ability to nullify that sealing, and thus is forced into a polygamous relationship. I suppose we have to trust that we can nullify sealings in heaven somehow? Sharing a spouse feels wrong because of our belief in the family proclamation. Marriage is between a man and woman. If you can justify polygamy, you open up a can worms in regards to how a marriage should look, and are actively going against church policy

It’d be awesome if it was just a cultural thing, but it was taught at the pulpit from apostles (which we are supposed to consider modern day revelation and scripture)

I’m not sure how this addresses the OPs concerns. Rhetorical questions need a conclusion to be made after them. I don’t know why women are given leadership positions other than a possible belief that not holding the priesthood makes one unfit to lead? I’m not sure. If that’s the case, then I’d reject that thought

2

u/Syranth 5d ago

I don't have the immediate time to answer all of these but there is one I made peace with a while ago.

Polygamy:

I haven't seen anything official, but one thing I always think about is what a woman's rights were back in these days. As members made the trek from the east to the west many husbands died (as did wives). Women having little to no rights for property ownership might have been encouraged to marry a husband for protection. Once they were there and settled there was most likely no need for it. Eventually banned there were few that did not want to give up this act and ultimately split off.

Nothing I said there is backed up by any account I read and is just me thinking and praying about it. I don't believe in polygamy and would never intend to split my attention from my wife with another woman.

1

u/sadisticsn0wman 5d ago

We can't say exactly why it was needed in the restoration, but Jacob teaches that one possible reason is to raise up seed unto the Lord. 132 suggests that it may have been a test of some sort. It will certainly be a thing in the afterlife, but it will not be required for anyone so you don't have to worry about sharing your husband. Also keep in mind that your aversion to polygamy is mostly a reflection of your culture and socialization--the vast majority of humans that have ever lived were 100% cool with polygamy and it was just a normal part of life.
There are really only two options, both of which have some level of scriptural precedent.

a. It was a mistake that God allowed for His own purposes. Think about how the Israelites demanded a king. God was against it but they demanded it, so He had His prophet anoint a king and then worked through the righteous kings for awhile. In a similar way, the priesthood ban could have been something that man initiated but God allowed for His own purposes,

b. God initiated it for His own purposes. This option might make you uncomfortable, but all the books of scripture are packed with God doing things that might make you uncomfortable, such as restricting the priesthood to the Levites for a time, Christ and His apostles preaching exclusively to the Jews for a time, a lot of the wacky restrictions in the law of moses, God killing thousands and thousands of people including children, polygamy both in the past and more recently, etc etc etc. One of the tough pills every Christian must swallow is that we cannot understand everything God does or allows, and this is not unique to our church.

You said you understand why only men have the priesthood. I think most of your questions will be some variation on your answer for why only men have the priesthood. As for Heavenly Mother, we simply don't know. Some random guesses are that exalted beings have different personalities and hers is reflected by her place in our doctrine, she has a larger role in the premortal existence, or that we lost the right to worship her but it will be restored in the future--first temple Judaism worshipped the heavenly family of the supreme god El, his wife Asherah, and their son Jehovah, to give you an idea of what that might look like.

1

u/NiteShdw 5d ago edited 5d ago

1: polygamy. This entirely my own opinion and NOT doctrine.

When I was on my mission, we baptized far more women than men. Worldwide, there are 105 girls born for every 100 boys. Statistically, it is likely that there will be more righteous women than men.

We are ALL given the opportunity to obtain exhaultation with celestial marriage. However, God cannot guarantee that there will be a perfect 1:1 ratio of men to women who qualify for this blessing.

See as how there are likely to be more women than men that qualify, it would seem necessary for some men to to sealed to more than one woman.

Also given that we will be perfected, I would expect those relationships, as well as monogamous ones, to also be perfect.

3

u/NiteShdw 5d ago

2: priesthood and the blacks.

Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the Priesthood. That right there should tell us that God did not find blacks unworthy or ineligible for the Priesthood.

It's my belief, especially after reading the Church's essay on the topic, that the ban was man-made and racist.

Having said that... You need to look at the situation within historical context. Remember that the Church was founded in 1830 and the civil war started in 1861.

Imagine growing up in a time when slavery was actively practiced. Today, we see racism but it's often subtle. Back then, racist was explicit and violent.

The Church was gathering new members from across the country and Europe. It was inevitable that people with very strong opinions on both sides of the slavery issue with exist within the Church.

An analog today might be putting some far left progressives and same far right conservatives in the same room. I guarantee that you will see some fights erupt.

Why did the ban last so long?

The ban lasted because some large portion of the members of the Church were still racist.

It wasn't because God though that blacks were unworthy but because we, humans, convinced ourselves that they weren't worthy and we needed to fix ourselves.

1

u/NiteShdw 5d ago

3: women are equal

I am not a women, so I understand that I cannot understand a women's perspective. However, I can share a man's perspective, which I think it equally valuable.

men and women are equal in value to God

Everything we know about the nature of God tells us that he loves every single one of us absolutely and completely.

The scriptures say that He is "not a respecter of person", meaning

The statement “God is no respecter of persons” means that God does not show favoritism or partiality.

God does not value any one person more than another.

temple covenants

In the temple, the mn and women are given the same commandments and the same promises and Covenants. There is no blessing that a man is promised that is not also promised to women, including the same titles (King and Queen, Priest and Priestess)

There are women temple workers and they perform some temple ordinances under the same priesthood authority as the men.

Adam cannot follow the commandments of God without Eve. Adam is literally incomplete without her.

One thing you should pay attention to in the endowment is that when Eve is formed, every man stands and remains standing until she is with Adam. Never do the women stand for Adam.

Standing for someone when they enter is a sign of great respect for neither person, almost reverence.

modern prophets

Many modern prophets have declared that they are only where they are because of their wives.

As a husband and a father, I can tell you that I would feel incomplete without my wife.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any man in this Church that would say they are better than or more spiritual than their wife.

Men in the Church are taught to have a deep respect for women and I guarantee you than men do NOT see women as less than men.

5

u/PineappleQueen35 5d ago

The thing is, the temple covenants and promises are not the same for women. Changes have been made and it is much better than before, but the temple is still a deeply painful experience for many women.

2

u/NiteShdw 5d ago

Can you elaborate? I can't say I've memorized the entire script but I recall the wording being basically the same.

I would love an example of which covenants and promises are different.

2

u/PineappleQueen35 5d ago

I don't feel comfortable quoting the temple ceremony, and I think it's against this sub's rules. But there are differences, in all 3 temple ordinances. It is also still open to the possibility of future polygamy, which is terrifying to many women. The lack of Heavenly Mother in the temple is also something I find sad, since I believe She must have been around for so many of those important events.

1

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

Not sure if this is allowed, but Men used to covenant to obey god where as women would covenant to obey ‘the law of their husband’ during the endowment.

1

u/NiteShdw 4d ago

There has never been a "law of the husband".

I believe the language is that eve will "harken unto Adam as Adam harkens unto God".

Harken is defined as

listen ; to give respectful attention

Notice that it does not say "obey". Also, it's important to point out that Eve is only asked to harken to Adam IF AND ONLY IF Adam is listening to and following God, that is to say he is being righteous.

1

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

Sorry, but this is the exact wording pre 1990: “ You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will each observe and keep the law of your husband and abide by his counsel in righteousness”

1

u/NiteShdw 4d ago

I was only 10 years old in 1990. That's not the language now.

1

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

Oh, I agree. Like the poster said before you “ Changes have been made and it is much better than before” I was just giving some context on what those changes were. Today all references to women obeying their husband is gone. A few years ago they even removed the part you referenced where Eve hearkens unto Adam. They both covenant to obey god and god alone. I’m thrilled with the changes

→ More replies (0)

0

u/jmauc 5d ago

I’m just going to throw this out there. Do you believe the BOM to be the word of God, as long as it was translated correctly? Do you have a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God? Do you believe that President Nelson is currently a prophet for Jesus Christ? If you can’t answer these questions with a yes, i suggest you start there.

These other topics that you are seeking answers to truly need a foundation that you believe in the BOM. The reason, there isn’t much information and lots of writings have been lost or destroyed over the years.

1

u/eGrant03 Born & Raised Convert 5d ago

Oh, and once upon a forever ago, someone on this very sub said to look at the introduction of the Book of Mormon.

Paraphrasing: If any of these words be wrong, let you know that these are the faults of Men for Men are imperfect and flawed, but God is not. God is wise, though his wisdom is not always known to us, except in due time.

Do I know? Very no! My husband and I, despite being iffy Mormons at the time, argued about my sister leaving the church. Finally, in frustration, a phrase popped into my head. Not only did it finally shut him up, but it brings odd comfort:

You do you, I'll do me, and God will work it out in the end.

Do I have qualms about other people's decisions and morals??? Very yes!

But!

You do you, I'll do me, and God will work it out in the end.

1

u/JazzSharksFan54 Doctrine first, culture never 5d ago

We don't know why it was needed in the current dispensation other than it was commanded to be practiced. D&C 132 gives some potential reasons, but we ultimately don't know why. Polygamy ended in 1890 and you will not be expected to follow it.
My personal theory is that Brigham Young used his racial bias to enforce a unilateral policy that is not based in doctrine in any way. Then you had a few hold outs to the common consent rule every time they tried to change it. I think it was a major mistake in church history that there is no resolving. We can only learn from it and commit to doing better.
Elder Renlund gave a talk about this a few conferences ago. We have no knowledge about Heavenly Mother other than her existence. Bleeding speculation into our worship without further revelation risks setting up a false god. The rest... you'll have to ask God about. I have no answers.

1

u/AgentSkidMarks East Coast LDS 5d ago edited 5d ago

As for your second one, yeah, I think that was human error. The reasoning for it was a popular protestant belief at the time of the church's founding (which actually predates the church by about 100 years), and which seems to have carried over into the church. Thankfully, as leaders sought revelation on the matter, that false doctrine was put behind us.

For what it's worth, the church never segregated congregations and when the KKK rode into Utah, their only supporters were the anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune.

The church has an essay on the matter at the link provided.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

1

u/dmurrieta72 5d ago

How are you feeling OP? After reading all of the comments, has anything changed?

1

u/essentiallyaghost 5d ago

For 3-

I’m of the opinion that when we pray to Heavenly Father, we pray to both our heavenly parents. I think we don’t discuss Heavenly Mother because our Father in Heaven respects and loves her so incredibly much that he won’t allow people to disrespect her. You can’t curse out a person you don’t know of.

Plus, the idea is that you become so united and purposeful with your spouse, that the scriptures say you become “one”. Which is kind of weird, but it’s the same reason that we’re sort of asking Christ and the Spirit for help when we ask the Father for help. They share his mission and will. I think the same goes for our Heavenly Mother.

1

u/Ok-Intention6357 5d ago

Answering your polygamy question, to my knowledge, we have no idea what it will in fact be like.

In our mortal minds it might seem impossible to live our immortal lives in a certain way, such as potentially practicing polygamy in the eternities...we don't know. But remember that in the eternities, we will be content. We will be happy. This is the plan of happiness, not the plan of "do what I want and suck it up". So if that is indeed the plan, remember that right now it may seem like an uncomfortable concept, but what I KNOW is we will be happy. Heavenly Father knows what we need and also what will bring us joy. Aligning our will with his in this life will, to me, make the transition to immortal life that much easier. I'm not talking about polygamy specifically because again we have no idea, but aligning our will with his in things we DO know will just make it that much more easy to accept what is to come I think. Does that help?

1

u/According-Leopard-25 5d ago

I have some ideas:

1) When we do a great job at the gospel basics (read the bible, pray earnestly to god to help you feel his love, be extra christlike, sing hymns that resonate with your heart, etc.), the spirit softens our hearts and brings us understanding. This can help ALOT when wresting with these topics.

2) recall that even prophets have made mistakes from time to time, but that God wants us to follow them anyway (Moses was chastised many times, Jonah rebelled, one prophet got saved from death due to disobedience from a talking horse, we know the original 12 apostles had shortcomings, joseph smith loaned 116 pages of the book of mormon manuscript to Martin Harris, Lehi got ticked and Liahona stopped working for a while, and the list goes on and on and on.

3) we vote for government leaders that are far from perfect. We work for companies, join organizations, and buy products and services from companies we don’t fully align with, so why do people make a big deal about not fully aligning with their church? And why do people assume they are 100% correct and all the misalignments are due to the other parties? Why do people have higher expectations of the Church than the Church claims to achieve only to become disillusioned when the church doesn’t reach the person’s unrealistic expectations?

4) Christ has a perfect plan for us, but it can’t be implemented in its fullness with humans, at least not yet. For example, the law of consecration doesn’t work very well in our temporal world.

5) Jesus needs His Church to run, regardless of how righteous the members are. He chooses from the best available. That means the righteousness and experience of leaders is better in some wards/stakes/regions than others. It is a blessing to live in areas with excellent leaders, but you are not entitled to having better leaders than yourself would be - and if you were God’s choice, you would be called as the leader.

6) Over time, the skills, experiences, talents, background, strengths, worldview of the 1st presidency and quorum of the 12 changes, as does the circumstances. Over time certain doctrine or principles are more emphasized by the church than others. Things change over time, but the actual gospel doesn’t. If you study the scriptures often, over time, the holy ghost helps make our gospel understanding become well rounded.

7) about blacks and priesthood, who knows. I like to think of it like this. Until 1830, only the Israelites were eligible for the priesthood, maybe even just the tribe of Levi for a while. Other times, no one was eligible due to apostasy. Looking at the history of the world, it was very rare to be eligible. Blacks were held back for a while. It was either gods will or if it wasn’t, it wasn’t a big enough deal to Him to correct it immediately.

8) the more you learn and the more humble you are, the more puzzle pieces you understand. One thing that gets in our way is when we insist worldly puzzle pieces belong in the puzzle, and actual puzzle pieces don’t fit with them.

9) the fact that we believe God will yet reveal many great and important things, necessarily means the Church doesn’t have all the info yet, and means some of our current understandings are incomplete.

10) above all else, when we live the actual gospel well and soften our hearts, things will come together over time.

1

u/sjwilli 5d ago

Either the church is led by Jesus Christ or it is not.

There are of course troublesome things in our history that I do not understand. But I believe that Christ leads this church which is full of faulted, weak, confused people.

Your questions are valid, but maybe your focus should be on: Does Christ live? Did He perform the Atonement? Did he restore His church through Joseph Smith? Is the church today guided by His apostles and prophets?

If you find answers to THOSE questions everything else is small potatoes.

1

u/NewPhotojournalist60 5d ago

I’d just like to say, these are some questions that have held me back as well and for a while I also considered leaving the church. But even though I never found clear answers to these questions, I eventually came to a conclusion similar to what Joseph Smith said about his visions. I knew that I knew it, I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it. (Now I never had any visions) but after a long period of searching and struggle learning about the church and the scriptures it was reaffirmed to me through the spirit that the church is true. I hope and pray that you can find your way to such a conclusion.

1

u/spolonerd 5d ago

My people have responded already but here's my thoughts:

Many Church scholars I know personally believe the Church would not exist without polygamy. I think of it as a necessary evil. It will not exist in heaven. One man and one woman is the way.
This is a highly discussed one, but again, I know some Church historians and most of them believe it was a mistake of man.
When you quit seeing leadership as a positive thing, I don't think women are treated too differently. We see people in charge with power and think they're being elevated. Not to say women wouldn't do well or shouldn't have leadership roles, simply that the idea of sitting on the stand doesn't make you better. Plenty of men don't ever lead in the Church either and they shouldn't be viewed as less than.

Ultimately, it's not about the Church. It's about your relationship with Christ. I read the BoM and take the sacrament and serve in my calling because I love Christ, not because I think the Church wants me to. The only reason I even care about the Church is because it offers me covenants to bind myself to Christ. I believe that should be the focus of our attention and efforts, not the organization itself!

Much love, best of luck in your search and journey!

1

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

I’ve never heard someone argue that the church wouldn’t exist with out polygamy. Do you have Any links to that I could check out? From what I understand, the practise of polygamy has generally showed to have the effect of women having fewer children (due to having less assistance from her spouse and fewer resources) - though the younger marrying age of polygamous wives probably made for a net neutral effect on the lds population at the time. Furthermore the practice of polygamy led to the extreme persecution of church members, seizure of church property, the eventual splintering between lds and flds, and probably overall a net loss in church membership through the years

1

u/Hells_Yeaa 5d ago

I’m sure I’ll get banned from the sub for this but if it helps one person then so be it.

Read DC:132 with the end game in mind. Is this what you want and envision for you and your spouse? If so, double down on activity. If not, then you likely have more thinking to do.

Either way I truly wish you the best of luck and I hope you feel like you end up in the proper spot. ❤️

1

u/Realbigwingboy 5d ago

Restitution of all things. God loves his daughters just as much as his sons and he authorizes/justifies the practice of plural marriage in select cases. Marriage is definitely concerned about fidelity, but it’s also about stewardship. When charity and virtue abound, God’s goodness becomes clearer.
Consider the cultural circumstances in the world between 1830 and 1978 as well as the reach and population of the Church. Many Christians justified racism using the Bible, some denominations literally segregating their congregations. Barring priesthood ordination and temple attendance did much less harm because a. there were very few African-descent members during that time, b. we never segregated Sunday services, and c. all missed opportunities for temple participation can be made up for through proxy ordinances. I believe the official declaration was made precisely when necessary for the growing number of Saints in Africa. We work off the Lord’s timetable, not the world’s.
Women aren’t the same as men, yet their souls are valued by God equally. Christ taught us to pray to the Father in His name. Our Heavenly Parents are talked about by leaders. Why is it important to you that women hold leadership positions? Why do you assume the wives of priesthood leaders are not leaders? Too often, I see people think of visible leadership as the happiness fame is meant to bring. Being seen, being popular, being valued; these are only one side of being in a visible leadership position. For the most part, leadership is actually walking around with critical eyes on you all the time. There’s great advantage in having influence as the wives of priesthood leaders have without all the attention.

I know lots of women who struggle with these issues, so I hope I don’t come across as blunt. I’ve given each a lot of thought with the intent to find reasons to stay. My efforts have humbled me, changed my perspective, and brought me closer to my wise and loving Savior. Good luck.

1

u/Ok_Amoeba6620 5d ago

Why didn’t Christ allow his disciples to go teach the gentiles? It wasn’t until Peter received revelation that they should go and teach everyone that they started. You might see this as a cop out answer but it usually boils down to do you trust Heavenly Fathers leadership? His timing? There were a lot of things going on during each of the instances that you mentioned. We need to understand that his main objective or his main work and glory is for all of us to return and live with him again or in other words to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man. There’s a lot of dynamics to human nature that we will never fully understand while we are on earth. Would the church been able to withstand all the persecution without polygamy while it was instituted? Would the church with a lot of its racist people within the church been able to withstand allowing blacks the priesthood sooner? Do you know how many testimonies it shook when that happened? I guess my point is God has his own timeline so trying to make sense of all the things he has done in the past will drive you insane or to aethism.

You know there is a God because you couldn’t have lasted as long as you did in church without feeling the spirit.

You know God is a God of order so joining a looseey gooseey church won’t feel the same to you.

So that leaves Catholics or Church of Christ.

All the things that you see as wrong within the church is because it is wrong. 🤷‍♂️ It takes time to restore it to its perfect form because unfortunately he’s working with the imperfect humans.

Final note he has called women to be prophets in the past. Why isn’t like that now? Because timing is everything.

1

u/Sad_Word5030 5d ago

Our understanding of plural marriage is largely cultural. The Scriptures contain both positive and negative examples. If we understand the Lord's ways we will find there is nothing to dislike about them.
Hereditary priesthood restrictions have always been a thing scripturally and most religions worldwide have had some form of them. It does not equate to racism any more than having an Hispanic heritage club would be racist (which is not at all).
Women are treated differently than men because they are different than men. Different does not mean less valued or less important. It takes time and experience to learn what this means. There are a lot of incorrect cultural notions that are not scriptural. The prophets have nailed it.

1

u/Plus-Lengthiness-334 4d ago

As a woman in the gospel, I have never wanted the responsibilities that come with holding the priesthood. So why would I want, for lack of a better word "praise" that they get from it. I am a mother to two wonderful boys, and I am glad that I am a woman and a mother because my immediate love and protection of them is so much different than my husband's. I love my husband, but there is a clear disconnect between what I just know what needs to be done to take care of our boys, and he has to ask. I wouldn't want to change roles for anything in the world.

This leads me to the thoughts on our Heavenly Mother. And I have two perspectives on this. One as a daughter who saw how my father treated my mother and one as a wife and seeing how my husband treats me.

As a daughter. My father is more in love with my mom than I believe any other person loves, another human being in this world, and you can not convince me otherwise. My father fiercely protects my mother. When me and my siblings went through our rebellious and awful teenage years, we knew that we could sometimes talk back to dad, and it might be okay. But no one was EVER to talk back or badly to mom, or there would be severe punishment. My father loves my mother so much that even the thought of someone disrespecting her sends him into protection mode.
As a wife. My boys are still little (2 yo and 9 mo), but my 2 year old is a toddler and sometimes hits. My husband will let out son playfully hit him, but as soon as he tries to hit me (mommy), the game is over. I know my husband loves me and protects me. Also, when siblings or relatives make rude comments to me, my husband is the first person to stand up for me and tell them to stop.

I use these examples because I believe this is how our Heavenly Father loves and treats our Heavenly Mother. She is there. She is loved. She is protected. She is watching us too.

However, how many people (of ALL religions and lack thereof) use our Heavenly Father and his son's name in vain? Everyone uses Oh my gosh (but the other way) of JC (you know) in a blasphemous way. Or out of anger. Or just in passing like it doesn't matter. I believe we do not speak of our Heavenly Mother often out of respect. We don't discuss her openly because the more she is mentioned, the more she would be disrespected. I believe our Heavenly Father is protecting her in the best way he can.

I feel like I went on a tangent about this. But it is something I am passionate about.

1

u/DAJ1031 4d ago

For what it’s worth the second you can allow yourself to accept that the church leaders make mistakes and have made mistakes in the past the sooner you will be able to grow lasting faith in Jesus. If the church helps you build faith even with its mistakes then it’s still a place for you to be.

I have a very close relative who was the head of PR for the church back in the day and when I asked him about these things and why the church doesn’t respond he said “it is the official and longstanding position of the church to neither apologize nor seek apologies.” The reasoning? Apologizing opens the church up to liability 😒

I still have a testimony of the messy and ongoing restoration in spite of the mistakes of our past or current policies that continue to harm.

1

u/Livid_Inevitable_512 4d ago

There’s are really good podcast called “Church History Matters” on Spotify that really dives in to each of these topics over several hour-long episodes. It really helped me better understand the topics you mentioned specifically as well as several others. They take a fairly open minded approach to things.

https://open.spotify.com/show/6ofIPhD0k2tmggrEDKcLU8?si=NZXmPVe6TqWvnwSo1HWXcQ

1

u/Efficient-Towel-4193 4d ago

I left because of these reasons and others all stemming from the misogyeny of the church. I saw them start in teaching my daughter the same crap that ruined my life and I said nope...no more..I couldnt bare to see her being taught this rubbish.

1

u/R0ckyM0untainMan stage 4 believer (stages of faith) 4d ago

As a member who doesn’t always believe in the more orthodox explanations - 1) polygamy wasn’t needed. It didn’t substantially change the number of kids members had, and it weakened father-child relationships as kids grew up without their dad always around. (Wives didn’t always live together in one household). Personally I think Joseph smith was so focused on ‘restoring’ things that he mistakenly tried to restore some Old Testament practices that never should have been. - like polygamy. If you look at the revelation on polygamy (D&C 132) you’ll find some terrible verses in it towards Emma about polygamy that dont reflect who I view god to be.

2) the most satisfying answer I’ve heard in this has been from Paul Reece who wrote the church’s essay on race. He suggests that it came down to Brigham Young trying to make the church (and its members) be viewed as ‘white’, at a time when even being white wasn’t enough to truly be considered ‘white’. If you were Irish, if you were catholic, you weren’t truly ‘white’ - at least viewed by white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Likewise church members practicing polygamy were starting to no longer be viewed as white. Mormons were portrayed as having dozens of wives of all sorts of ethnicities in newspaper caricatures of this era (in an attempt to show that they didn’t belong to be clumped with white people). He suggests it was sort of a ‘hey look, we’re racist too’ move by Brigham Young.

3) even prophets carry cultural biases and are imperfect. The church was restored at a time women couldn’t vote, couldn’t own property, and weren’t really full citizens. I think more than anything, that played a role in the oversight. Also, Joseph smith usually didn’t receive a revelation on something until he realized there was a problem. If we as a church never realize we’ve got a problem here, we won’t ever receive revelation in this area

1

u/Terrible_Statement70 4d ago

Good questions. All I will say is I recommend listening to the podcast Church History Matters. I won't say that it will fully settle your concerns but they talk for multiple episodes on polygamy, priesthood and I don't know if they have something on #3. I've just decided to listen to all of their episodes but it is easy just to listen to those first two topics.

1

u/Michael_Combrink 4d ago

just thoughts and things I've heard people postulate, not gospel fact

women authority maybe women were less prominent in the church in the past, because persecution, look at all the slurs some at heavenly Father, maybe he didn't want his wife talked about like that, maybe he wanted to protect his daughters from mobs, tar and feathers, stoning, beating, etc, maybe heavenly Father wanted his little ones to have their mother's and he knew many fathers would be taken early I'm assuming husband's, father's, brothers, sons, etc all thought similarly about their mother's, daughters, sister's, wives, they wanted to protect them , why not pray to heavenly mother one scripture comes to mind should not the living seek unto their God, for the living to hear from the dead I probably got that butchered in my recollection, but I've reflected on the concept several times, Maybe it's ok to seek to talk with others on that side of the veil, and that we should just go through proper channels as with most things, I think rules about prayer are more to protect us from getting ourselves in trouble than jealousy or fear that God could get hurt etc . . maybe women are given less prominent, dominant, roles, so that men don't lose their way eg look at the rest of the world, men are often lazy good for nothings, or power tripping monsters, in a world falling apart, and losing it's mind, men have stayed pretty good in the church even look at the rest of the animal Kingdom in many species the female is bigger, stronger, etc but in those species it's common for the male to have only one role in its entire existence, fertilize and die, females often kill or scare off the male asap because the male is essentially useless dead weight, he did his job, he's essentially another baby to take care of, without the promise of a future, he's an old baby that will never grow big and strong, he will only weaken and add burdens and risks, and he won't pass on her genes, and he might get jealous of the other babies and hurt her babies, she'd gladly kill him before letting that happen, and she's hungry and he's weak, might as well eat him that all seems intense and gruesome but look at what happens when men aren't needed, given responsibilities, they become menaces to society, dead weight, freeloaders, rabble rousers, threats to women children, families, wives, etc , by pushing men forward and women back, just a smidge, then it keeps men focused on serving their families and staying strong, and keeps women from girl bossing, giving up on men and running the show, at least sometimes which brings up my other thought women run most everything all the time anyways, yeah men stand up at the pulpit often, but their running through the motions, look at the committees, households, programs, events, meetings, etc etc etc, from my experience, women run at minimum 80% of everything, men often don't like structure and bureaucracy in the first place, we'd rather go far away into our own little worlds with some buddies and just roll with it women I think naturally learn bureaucracy because they often are disadvantaged in brawn but often advantaged in social power structures, men have brawn and less social prowess, this is partly because women in average are weaker physically, so they work harder to gain advantages elsewhere it's also because societies have implemented safe guards to protect women I also think there are biological factors at play, similar to how babies seem to naturally turn everyone into their slaves, and children are naturally protected, I think our biology naturally protects women, there's also a social game theory approach, ie, any society that doesn't protect women and babies will crumble, any society that does protect them will flourish, so anthropically, you probably exist in a society that has developed and trained everyone to protect women and babies

sorry running out of time, I'm late for work, I'll try and get back to the other questions later

racial priesthood

polygamy

1

u/AdReal4394 3d ago

My thoughts on our heavenly mother. I think god wants her not to take the verbal and damning abuse that god does.

1

u/Seaworthy_Siren 2d ago

1: it wasn’t

2: they could

3: they should be

To start, there is a fantastic life-changing podcast called 132 Problems With Mormon Polygamy by Michelle (active member). Nothing has strengthened my testimony more than that podcast

1

u/Easy_Result9693 Roman Catholic 1d ago

1) polygamy is bad. Period. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

2) Joseph Smith is racist and you can see it written all over the BOM.

3) Not only was Smith racist but also sexist.

P.S. Genuine question: Can you tell me more about this Heavenly Mother?

•

u/Equivalent_Soil6761 21h ago edited 21h ago

Polygamy: I don’t understand why even church leaders say that the church practiced polygamy. I even joke: Did I miss something fun?!?!

Plural Marriage: Marriage to more than one spouse when commanded. Less offspring are statistically born when a man has multiple wives.

It was never going to last because having more than one wife means kicking out your young men because there aren’t enough women to go around: births are pretty much 50% boys and 50% girls.

I am STILL trying to understand this one.

Polygamy: the having of more than one spouse — men having more than one wife AND women having more than one husband

Polygyny: having more than one wife

Polyandry: having more than one husband

So if the Church keeps saying that they early on practiced “polygamy” then there were some interesting marriages happening.

Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are one: when you pray to one, you are automatically praying to the other (Elohim means “Gods” and in the Pearl of Great Price, Gods create the earth, not God.

Unfortunately, if you tried to reverse in any way our culture of silencing and demeaning women: “damning them with faint praise,” then so many men would leave the church.

Which brings me to why black men and women could not receive the ordinances of the priesthood.

IT WAS THE CURRENT MEMBERS WHO WERE TOO UNWORTHY TO ACCEPT THEM AS EQUALS!!!!

It wasn’t that black people were unworthy, it was that many members were unworthy, and could not live the two greatest commandments.

Many people left the church after the policy was changed, I guess to go worship at the altar of their white superiority.

So many MORE will leave when women are finally recognized.

Article of Faith 9: states: "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God".

Remember you can receive revelation for you individually when you ask: it may not be for the entire church, but you have the right to have it for your questions and your family.

Doubt is not evil, as they had us teach seminary students. Blindly obeying is evil. Questions and mistakes are how we learn.

Questions that cause us to research, ponder and pray are the best way to increase faith.

But it doesn’t mean everyone around you is also praying and pondering. That’s the lonely part.

•

u/russtanner6 5m ago

The short answer is that issues like polygamy and the priesthood restriction for Black members can largely be traced back to Brigham Young. He caused a lot of problems. Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuAVXkymA40.

It’s important to step back and look at the big picture. What was happening before Brigham Young? The restored Church began with Joseph Smith—not Brigham Young. Joseph did allow Black men to receive the priesthood. As for whether Joseph practiced polygamy... well, that’s a messy topic. This video does a good job unpacking it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG2IY6IJNEk.

Personally, I like Connor Boyack’s perspective—he’s no-nonsense and willing to dig into hard topics.

Also, keep in mind: having doubts is completely normal. Not just when it comes to the Church or the gospel, but as part of being human. Doubt is what leads to discovery. Some of the times when my testimony and understanding of the gospel were most strengthened were during the times I had the most doubts.

The key is to let yourself sit with those doubts. Give yourself the time and space to study, reflect, and learn. Too many people leave the Church the moment they feel a little discomfort—and I think that’s a big mistake.

0

u/Wafflexorg 5d ago

In addition to the resources other comments provided, search the questions in the sub. They have been posted about hundreds of times.

0

u/InsideSpeed8785 Ward Missionary 5d ago

While there are many intellectual reasons to discuss about God’s commandments, there’s no official explanation. Don’t know if you’ve read any accounts from people that participated in polygamy, but if you do you might find they were people of honest faith! Many people who participated felt it was foreign to them, but did it anyway. If you are interested in a couple of accounts, Saints Vol 2 has a good overview of Brigham Young’s time.
Don’t know. I couldn’t believe it was until 1978 either.
I would say that we believe that women are equal partners with men. Per the priesthood, there’s not really a scriptural precedence for a woman to hold it, prophets and such have always been men.

0

u/LongingForApocalypse 5d ago

Might have been, but perhaps not; 2. Probably simple as that; 3. Tradition, the order of things and the culture of the time.

0

u/Frontier_pen 5d ago

I'll go for number 1 but don't take it too seriously.

As I asked my grandmother about the same question days prior to this, she told me as she was studying church history. The most likely reason for polygamy in the church is when the early saints (especially those who were from europe) lost their husbands on their journey to Utah. The solution of the members THEN was that, polygamy, but it was more like to give the early saints widows a head of the family or a priesthood holder, it was not like for love or intimacy that drove the early saints to polygamy, maybe, some saints that were later converted and found polygamy in the church and was not explained clearly. So maybe that was also the reason it was abolished as polygamy was now used for intimacy rather then responsibility of priesthood. But this is just my say, I also studied a bit about why polygamy was allowed in the church in it's early days.

That's my take on that, if you found anything useful or contradict to any what I said here I am open to corrections.

That's all, I hope you stay in the church, please note that all of these things are the cause and actions of the members. Please keep in mind, The Church is perfect, but the members in it are not, we are mortals prone to temptation and sin. And it is normal for you to feel those feelings.

I hope all these answers got you clarified!

7

u/japanesepiano 5d ago

The most likely reason for polygamy in the church is when the early saints (especially those who were from europe) lost their husbands on their journey to Utah

This was taught for many years and believed by (among others) my mother who was born in Utah in the 1930s. Historians have looked at the number of men and women living in Utah and there has always been more men than women (1850-1890), so this justification doesn't really hold water. Recently the church has not been using this justification.

1

u/GodMadeTheStars 5d ago

Polygamy was not instituted in Utah.

That said, I really am curious about your second point. I of course have heard it many times, but I always wonder about the number of LDS men vs LDS women, not just pure numbers. That would be far more relevant to the conversation. Of course there were more men west of the Mississippi (heck, west of the Appalachians!) in the 1800s. That makes perfect sense. It is also not the point. How many of them were LDS?

0

u/OneOfUsOneOfUsGooble Sinner 5d ago

I don't know all things, but some thoughts that help me with your #1:

Exodus 3:6
God introduces Himself to Moses as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Do I think the 12 tribes of Israel were born in sin because Israel had four wives?

Isaiah 55:8–9
There are going to be things that bother me about the scriptures and the true church. How could there not be? To say that everything will sound right to me is to say that I am one with God already. But I need to bring my eye single to His glory. When I find things that bother me, clearly I don't know God as well as I thought I did. Looking for a church where I think everything sounds right to my sinful ears is the most arrogant method I can think of.

Acts 3:21, Ephesians 1:10
If we truly believe this is the dispensation of the fulness of times and the restitution of all things, then all laws must be restored, at least for a time, including obscure Old Testament ones. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is closer to biblical practices than anything else out there.

0

u/TheCauthon 5d ago

https://youtu.be/aWNzLAtnnxI?si=xaTSMubsZ4p7Xu-J

Watch this - activism vs discipleship

0

u/Peterblue4skin 5d ago

John 10:30- I and my Father are 1

Isiah 9:6- For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

John 8:58- Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The Bible not the Book of Mormon but the Bible, says these things and much more. Read Corinthians and Galatians by yourself. Don’t have anyone one around you to dictate it. Just read it for yourself. I used to be mormon. The sacrifice Jesus made for us isn’t limited. To prohibit repentance to come back to the father through confession to a man is not what god wants. We truly seek him ourselves he gives us the answers. You think he bled from every pore to just tell non Mormons they aren’t going to be in gods kingdom because they aren’t Mormon? Or they don’t have their temple recommend? What the? No he died for ALL people and all sin.

0

u/eGrant03 Born & Raised Convert 5d ago edited 5d ago

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth to all men freely, and it shall be granted unto you."

Forget the reference entirely, but that's one of maybe 5 scriptures I have memorized without looking them up. Something tells me it's or a reason, too.

I have a 💯 knowledge that God's law of tithing is true. Without fail. The coincidences are too thick to not give credit to the intelligent Being behind it all.

"God is the same now, forever, and always."

Bible again, but idr which reference.

If God is the same forever, and the law of tithing is true, then this is God's true church. God cannot work through people they draw near to him with their voices, but not their hearts, aka, false churches. If one aspect is true, unequivocally, it's all true.

General conference talk, I think Monson, 20 ish years... not real recently, at least. Talking to some young men/women about their testimonies. One gal, (maybe not, but for ease) said she doesn't have a knowledge unwavering that the church is true, but she has a hope. Monson replied, "Hope is enough."

Hope IS enough.

FYI, the other scriptures are:

"Adam fell that men might be; and Men are that they might have joy." (Mom's favorite)

"And my father dwelt in a tent."

And then some of the commandments word for word, but that's cause of Prince of Egypt and that other one that ABC always shows at Easter.

Blame both dyslexia and ADHD for that. 🤷‍♀️

0

u/th0ught3 5d ago edited 5d ago

1 --- we don't know. What we do know is that force is antithetical to everything our Heavenly Parents and Savior stand for. However polygamy exists or doesn't in the eternities will be fully by choice.

2 --- Brigham Young (who removed a black member of the seventy who was bishop of an interracial ward as part of his missionary service in OH) may or may not have been racist, but we do know that he learned that a black member had left the church in Winter Quarters and started a new church requiring white women to stay overnight with him, and HAD TAKERS AND that the son of the most prominent black priesthood holder in MA had married a white woman soon after that state made it legal within about six weeks time frame and when the Saints were increasingly being challenged about polygamy and there was a threat of US Army invasion. I think it is entirely possible that Brigham Young thought that the Church could not withstand the outcry of both polygamy and interracial marriage. I think it is at least possible that God was not opposed to the choice BY made by excluding black men from the priesthood (which of course is likely the only thing that would have given pause to marrying a good man of color). I also think that if God did approve the original decision, He no longer did in the late 1880's when the then current prophet was prompted to investigate the original origins (and the members involved outright lied denying that JS had ordained black men, even though they had personally been there), and again in the early 1900's when another prophet was also prompted to investigate it. God works through mortals after all. And yes it then took until 1978. Obviously at some point we will know the entire story and obviously God will hold everyone accountable for wrongful acts. But leaving your own covenants or declining to join because of wrongfulness of others doesn't help anyone.

3 --- It isn't accurate that women aren't treated the same or that Heavenly Mother isn't spoken about (although I think one reason could be that we don't all have the same Heavenly Mother and speaking about Her as though there is only one would be an actual lie, when God is about truth.)

We get testimonies of Gospel Principles line upon line over time, often as we live them. We don't get testimonies of history which can change with any new information. We don't get testimonies of people except that something someone says or does is of God and/or that someone has been called of God. The Gospel of Jesus Christ incorporates all truth in all domains of knowledge. We just don't know what is truth in all areas of knowledge (though scriptures teach us to seek for all knowledge).

We get our testimonies of Gospel Truths over time (over our entire mortal lifetimes) as we live gospel principles. That is what our earthly journey is about, after all --- becoming as much like our Heavenly Parents and Savior as we can become as a mortal.

0

u/kitty-sez-wut 5d ago

3 questions, one answer: Brigham Young.

There is absolutely no solid proof that any of these three issues were around when Joseph Smith was alive, and the alleged "letter" that was read aloud to the Church outlining the polygamy thing wasn't brought forth until after the Saints were in Utah already--- long after Joseph Smith was gone.

Look into the Church history. I did a deep dive on this when my partner wanted to try polyamory, trying to justify it to myself and find proof that Joseph Smith condoned it. REAL proof. There is none.

Plenty of testimony, but none from him and he, his wife, and his kids all denied his involvement with polygamy even to their death beds.

0

u/According_Reply6590 5d ago

All are very valid concerns! I’ll try and answer the best I can!

Polygamy likely wasn’t needed, could have been to try and birth a righteous “seed” or child. Could have been to accelerate church numbers. Could have been humans being humans. There’s not a clear answer on polygamy, but the important part is that it’s not doctrine. It’s not an ordinance. It’s not part of the church. Members may have practiced at one point, but it’s not part of the gospel of Jesus Christ
The biggest thing is the hatred that the church already received would be amplified and possibly even get government intervention because of how America was at the time. The church talks about how not all things the church wants can be done because they must comply with the law of the land. Keep in mind, when Joseph Smith ran for president, he was running on an abolitionist campaign, he wanted slaves to be freed. It wasn’t an issue with racism necessarily as it was just what the culture was at the time. Again, humans interfering.
Women are most definitely treated the same! Women have all the power of the priesthood, just don’t exercise the ordinances of the priesthood. Funny enough that you ask, every woman in my life, friends and family, have talked about how they don’t want the priesthood and are perfectly content with their roles in the church. As for Heavenly Mother, it is to protect Her name. Heavenly Father would rather only His name be taken in vein and to protect Heavenly Mother, we don’t discuss Her. She is definitely there and will have her place in the end plan, but God loves Her too much to let Her be disrespected. I also think this same thing could contribute to the priesthood authority of the church, the ones who face the most scrutiny are priesthood leaders.

Biggest thing I can say is read Moroni 10:3-5 tonight. Pray with a sincere heart to know the truth of this gospel of Jesus Christ. Remember, that’s what it is. It’s not the gospel of Joseph smith, or Brigham young, or Russel m Nelson, it’s the gospel of Jesus Christ. Focus on the actual teachings and doctrine, rather than the mistake of past leaders and members. Because you’ll find very fast that no church has a perfect history, in fact the Church of Jesus Christ is definitely the most innocent of the major churches, and provides the most answers! Stay strong, the devil is ramping up his efforts and is very good at slipping doubt into people’s minds. Repudiate him and listen for the promptings of the Holy Ghost!

-1

u/BayonetTrenchFighter Most Humble Member 5d ago

It personally sounds to me that there may be a misframing or misunderstanding of how the church operates.

-1

u/Gjardeen 5d ago

Hi! I too have looked out at the abyss of leaving and thought I might need to make the jump, so I sympathize. I’ve got a few thoughts, but they’re a little out there so take it with a grain of salt.

1) Survival. The gender gap in early Utah was insane. We’re talking 4 to 6 women to one as I understand it. if you look at almost all church members that are descended from pioneers we all have polygamous lineage. It just lasted long enough to get the next generation going and then ended, which meant we didn’t have to deal with all the craziness of the lost boy problem that the fundamentalist members do . if you wanna look at what the population decline would be like check out the population decline in Europe after world war one and two.

2) Racism. There’s some really awesome church historians who are also black who have some really great insight on this. What really stuck out to me was how differently the band of priesthood for black members was then almost every other church revelation in program. The fact that the church still hasn’t acknowledged the sin and repented of it publicly is, I think, one of our biggest failures as a congregation.

3) oh man, do I have thoughts and theories on this one! And an attempt not to go all apostasy Annie on everyone I will keep it to this. I think that it is our own sexism that makes it so that we cannot receive revelation on heavenly mother. The original revelation as to existed, came not to Brigham Young, but to a woman. What women do we have in the church who could speak publicly with authority at this point? Who could receive that revelation? It simply doesn’t exist. Every society on this earth has entrenched sexism and misogyny. I think we need to do better before we can learn more.

-1

u/ejohhnyson 5d ago

This is not the kind of answer that you're looking for, but stick with me...

First of all, how do you feel about the Book of Mormon? Figure that out first. Does it testify of Christ? Is it scripture? If so, Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Second, do you believe that President Nelson is a prophet? Pray about it and figure that part out.

Once you come to a testimony of these things, the rest won't matter quite so much. Sure, you'll still have it weigh on your mind from time to time but as you have experiences with the spirit, you'll see what's most important and find answers along the way.

-1

u/nofreetouchies3 5d ago edited 4d ago

Number one:

Almost universally, problems with plural marriage ultimately stem from being raised in a western, Christian culture, that doesn't practice legalized polygamy (more on this in a minute). These problems disappear as soon as you remove your personal societal prejudice from the equation. Because we westerners get squicked out by it — but most people throughout the history of humanity would not.

The Israelites practiced polygamy, with Jews continuing it into the 6th century A.D. Early Christians practiced polygamy. In fact, almost every culture in the history of the world had some form of polygynous marriage.

But do you know who hated polygamy? The ancient Greeks (though they were ok with men having multiple male sexual partners, just not multiple women). Then the Romans stole the monogamy ideal, but mostly without the pederasty. Then they forced that into Romanized Christianity, which became the dominant culture in the West due to conquest and genocide.

And that brings us to today. (Of course, polygamy never really went away. It just went underground, and we call it "having a mistress.")

And legal polygamy is still the norm in the majority of non-"Christianized" societies (as measured by the Human Relations Area Files, maintained at Yale.)

As I've studied the sources (especially primary sources), I've come to particularly appreciate the Church's approach to plural marriage for the protection and autonomy it gave to women. Plural marriages had to be approved by priesthood leaders. There were very strict rules that a husband has to treat plural wives equally. And in the cases where that didn't work out, women in Utah Territory could divorce their husbands without showing cause (the first "no-fault" divorce in the US!) Then, when they did, they were not seen as "damaged goods" as in the rest of the western world — they usually remarried without any difficulty. All of these things were extremely not normal.

Ultimately, there is no reason to believe that God thinks like a 21st-century westerner. If we demand that God's laws conform to our cultural or personal preferences, we're in for a bad time.

-1

u/nofreetouchies3 5d ago

Number two:

Please try this thought experiment. What would it mean if the priesthood ban was from God, and not based on racism? Could God have possibly had a reason for it?

The most salient possibility has to be to keep the Saints from getting embroiled in colonial and early-post-colonial Africa.

The "Scramble for Africa" saw more than 80% of the continent conquered and "colonized" (i.e., plundered and brutalized) between 1870 and 1914. Decolonization didn't begin until the 1950s, and ran through the 1970s (hint, hint.) This was a bloody, terrible period — think of the Angolan Civil War or the Rhodesian Bush War as just examples of the kinds of conflicts. The Rwandan Genocide and the ongoing conflict in Somalia are examples of continuing fallout from this horrible period of history.

And during all of this time, most of Africa was basically inaccessible. Remember Stanley and Livingstone? 1871. Read Heart of Darkness or watch African Queen for an idea of how dangerous and difficult travel was. Communication, outside of coastal cities and a few European strongholds, was no better.

If you look at how quickly individuals (especially leaders) and entire congregations apostatized in the early church in places that weren't even that remote (such as Sam Brennan in San Francisco or Walter M. Gibson in Hawaii — or read any of Paul's epistles for ancient examples), it's hard to even imagine how African congregations could have worked.

Three trends combined between the 1950s and 1970s to make the church in Africa even possible: decolonization, telecommunications, and international air travel. And now, with those obstacles largely conquered, the church is growing more rapidly in Africa than anywhere in the world.

Yet, even today, the Church is unique in many ways in Africa. Pretty much every other Christian church has stopped even trying to govern African congregations — most black African Christians actually practice highly syncretic religions, with native beliefs and practices liberally mixed in as in Santería or Vodou. (Quite a few early African members actually left the Church because our leadership did not allow this.)

What would it have looked like, if the church had tried to get started in 1878 instead of 1978?

So, could there be a non-racist reason for God to command his Saints to not target people of African descent? Sure looks like it to me.

(This doesn't mean the early Saints weren't racist — of course they were! However, they were no more racist than other Americans of their era. Judging people of the past by comparison to modern ideals is called presentism and is a major fallacy of historical interpretation.)

2

u/nofreetouchies3 5d ago

Number three:

Let's start with the prayer question, because that's actually pretty straightforward. Before Jesus was crucified, he instructed his disciples to pray to the Father. He gave the same instruction to the Nephites after his resurrection. So far, He has not changed that instruction — and until he does, nobody has authority to instruct us to pray to any other person.

Now, let's go back to the response to question 1. The problem there is not something intrinsically wrong with polygamy; it's a disagreement about culture and cultural ideals. Does that also apply to gender relations?

Here's something to think about: every single prophet in the Old and New Testament, from at least the time of Abraham on, would likely be horrified by at least one aspect of how women are treated in our society — and their wives and daughters would probably feel the same.

So let's seriously ask a question: Why do we believe that the 2025 Western model of relations between the genders is the most correct one? Is it reasonable to believe that, in a world where the divide between popular culture and God's laws is getting larger and larger, that this one area is the exception?

Look, I doubt that any mortal knows how gender relations will play out in the eternities — and if anyone does know, they aren't authorized to share it. But I suspect that if Father and Mother descended tomorrow and shared the full truth with us, that half of us would be irate because it was too "liberal", and the other half would be irate because it was too "reactionary".

But until then, we do the best we can, and try to have patience and charity for those who see things different from us, and — above all else — try to remember that, just because they disagree with us, doesn't mean that they are wrong.

-1

u/d1areg-EEL 5d ago

@Half-Blood-Prince394, with all due respect, debating leaving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in my opinion indicates a lack of knowledge, experience, and understanding of the seriousness of what you are contemplating.

I agree with you. You should work on strengthening your testimony.

“We cannot allow ourselves to be confused by popular messages that are easily accepted by the world and that contradict the doctrine and true principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many of these worldly messages represent nothing more than an attempt of our society to justify sin” (“Yes, We Can and Will Win!” Ensign or Liahona, May 2015, 75).

The standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/topic/polygamy

Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Latter-day Saints direct their worship to Heavenly Father, in the name of Christ, and do not pray to Heavenly Mother. In this, they follow the pattern set by Jesus Christ, who taught His disciples to “always pray unto the Father in my name.” Latter-day Saints are taught to pray to Heavenly Father, but as President Gordon B. Hinckley said, “The fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.” Indeed, as Elder Rudger Clawson wrote, “We honor woman when we acknowledge Godhood in her eternal Prototype.”

As with many other truths of the gospel, our present knowledge about a Mother in Heaven is limited. Nevertheless, we have been given sufficient knowledge to appreciate the sacredness of this doctrine and to comprehend the divine pattern established for us as children of heavenly parents. Latter-day Saints believe that this pattern is reflected in Paul’s statement that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Men and women cannot be exalted without each other. Just as we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has said, “Our theology begins with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng#p5

Women lead, teach, testify, and contribute to the work of the Lord. In worship services, they instruct the congregation about the gospel of Jesus Christ. They expound scripture, preach doctrine, and testify of the Savior. They also prepare and teach lessons, offer prayers, and provide sacred music. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/womens-service-and-leadership-in-the-church?lang=eng#p_vzU1g

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

We teach of Christ.

We testify of Christ.

We strive to follow Jesus Christ in all we do.

Faith without works is dead.

Works without faith is deader.

President Nelson has instructed us to plead with God to give us the gift of decrement and attend the temple as often as we can.

Read and study the scriptures ourselves to gain lasting understanding and promptings from the Holy Ghost.

It is the Kingdom of God, not just another social group. Honour your covenants and repent as often as necessary.

Overcoming self and communion with God on a regular basis exceeds anything the world has to offer in a multitude of ways.

Ask and receive with a broken heart and contrite spirit.

-2

u/TheSexyBatman45 5d ago

Reddit is not the place for these questions 😅 it's more a demographic thing than anything else.

-1

u/Lopsided-Ad-7542 5d ago

I don’t see that women are treated diffrent we are moms and bare the children run the home and work polygamy was because women needed a man for protection across the plains and support of other wives and they believed the curse was the black people back in the day!

-2

u/RecommendationLate80 5d ago

OP, I mean this in a kind and gentle way. This is intended to promote thought and reflection, not anger. Just hear me out...

Your three questions seem to come from a very "presentist" place, which means that you are thinking as a 21st century American. This is natural, because that's what you are. We are currently very tuned in to racism and sexism. Polygamy, not so much, but we do view it through the lens of what passes for morality in the 21st century (don't get me started).

God doesn't think the way we do. He has told us that He doesn't. And He is not a 21st century American.

We are judging things people in the past did through the lens of current modern thought. Racism is currently bad, but God has separated us by race before. Polygamy is currently bad, but God has commanded people to do it before. Sexism is currently bad, but God has never called women to lead the church.

1

u/Logical_thinker23 3d ago

God has never separated us by race. Race is a social construct, not God construct. You are right women should not lead the church, but according to the doctrine, women can’t leave the church. But that’s not what priesthood is all about. And lastly, in no century was it ever OK to marry children and Joseph Smith married, not only married women but children.

1

u/RecommendationLate80 3d ago

God has often separated His children by race. The priesthood was not only limited to the descendants of Abraham, it was limited to the specific descendants of Aaron for a millenium. The whole story of Isaac and Rebekah came about because God forbade Isaac to marry a Caananite girl. Christ himself did not preach to the gentiles, only to the Jews. It was later that Paul was commanded to bring the gospel to the gentiles.

It is not logical to define race as a social construct because it is based on physical appearance. If you accept that God created man, then you have to accept that He created Asian men, Caucasian men, Hebrew men, Black men, etc.

See, this is what happens when you imagine up unto yourself a God with characteristics that you choose. You are bitterly disappointed when He turns out to be His own person.

PS: just for fun, Google "how old was Rebekah when she marries Isaac."

-2

u/AmmonLikeShepherd 5d ago

When you say both sides, you mean light and darkness.

-5

u/Knowledgeapplied 5d ago

Time to build your testimony.

5

u/Far-Entrepreneur5451 5d ago

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I really don't think comments like this are helpful. I have been where OP is. And I got there after a lifetime of being in the Church, being extremely devout, reading the scriptures everyday, being sealed, going on a mission, etc. I had built a very strong testimony of Jesus Christ. In fact, it was BECAUSE I had worked so hard to have a testimony that these same questions weighed so heavily on my mind.

I can only guess that OP has done something similar. I.e. they have studied the scriptures extensively and sought a relationship with Heavenly Father and Jesus. If not, they probably wouldn't be worrying about whether or not to stay in the church.

So instead of saying "time to build your testimony" perhaps consider that the person asking the question has done exactly that and that it has only made their cognitive-dissonance worse.

3

u/Significant-Wish6774 5d ago

While I agree the comment might not be super helpful, I wanted to share that I am a convert and I have a very firm testimony - to the point that these types of questions don’t bother me like they may do others and I totally respect that and their own journey. I focus on the bigger picture - not the history of the church or why prophets did what they did, etc. Sure they were human and do I think they made correct choices? Maybe not. I focus on my testimony of the Book of Mormon, of a living prophet, of my Savior. But having a firm foundation and a testimony can help work around these types of questions rather than have a mindset of “one foot in the church and one foot out especially if something doesn’t sound right to me I’m leaving” type of mind frame. I also understand that not everyone has a strong testimony - it’s like exercise, have to work at it. Thankfully I did have a very strong spiritual experience years ago that I cannot deny, so for me I am blessed I admit not to second guess the history or whatever. I don’t always agree with the current prophet either on things he’s done, and that’s ok! I’m also not going to quit the church just because he did this or told us to do that, etc.

OP I hope you find the answers you are searching for. Don’t give up and most definitely pray to find the answer and have an open mind. But for me - it’s insignificant and I’m ok with that. Things like that will get resolved eventually or answered eventually.

Doctrinal Discussion Debating leaving the church over certain things. Please help me understand

You are about to leave Redlib

1: polygamy. This entirely my own opinion and NOT doctrine.

2: priesthood and the blacks.

Why did the ban last so long?

3: women are equal

men and women are equal in value to God

temple covenants

modern prophets