A question only for Mormons. Polygamy and free agency.?

Question

Hey fellow Mormons. I have a problem. It has been in my mind for some time now. I know that God can be both kind and terrible, but I also know that He has given us our free agency. I read in "Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Lyman Bushman that quote: "By delaying plural marriage, Joseph risked provoking God's wrath. Mary Rollins Lightner, one of his plural wives, later said Joseph told her about the pressure he was under. "The angel came to me three times between the year of '34 and '42 and said I was to obey that principle (of plural marriage) or he would [s]lay me." Others told the story with an additional detail: the angel held a drawn sword." Many affidavits by people like Joseph B. Noble, Benjamin F. Johnson to George S. Gibbs, make it highly likely that this story about the angel and the sword is not made up. I have problems reconciling this account with the doctrine of free agency. Help, please?

Maybe prophets are held to a higher standard? Consider Jonah and the whale. Jonah decided he wasn't going to listen to God's command to go to a certain city to preach repentance. So God made a whale swallow him. I suppose Jonah and Joseph Smith both had free agency to reject the commandments of God; however, the consequences were very severe, especially because of their calling as Prophets of God. I don't know. Maybe there isn't a problem afterall.

Answer 1

Well, we have free agency, but we also are expected to obey the commandments... it could have been too that he was held to a higher standard like you suggested. Who knows. He was given a commandment, a law, and maybe as the prophet of the time, he was a lot more expected to follow it so others would as well. I don't worry about it too much, it doesn't effect me so I just try to concentrate on what I am supposed to do, not so much what was done in the past.
Pray about it, ask for understanding of the doctrine. You know if you are sincere, you will receive the answers you seek!

Answer 2

Hey, what a great question!

I am a mom. What I often tell my children is that they are always free to choose what they will do. But they are never free to choose the consequence(s).

Joseph never lost his right to choose whether to present the answer he received when he asked the Lord why polygamy was practiced by OT prophets. He also had no control over what would happen if he chose to continue in his disobedience.

The president of the church is the only person on earth whom the Lord has promised will not lead the church astray. If he does, he will be removed from his place. Comes with the job.

Answer 3

This is an opinion, with an emphasis on the word "opinion." The whole subject of polygamy as a "commandment" was extremely problematic for years until I started studying cause and effect, so to speak. If you study who was born to polygamous families in the 19th Century, it is interesting to note which future leaders were born to parents who sacrificed in that time and era to live that particular principle. In my opinion, there is a lot of timing involved with how people are born and how they die. It is my opinion that between say 1830 to 1890 the Church was missing some men who would have been baptized at some point in time, if only the Civil War had not interfered with their life span and cut it short. However, it is also my opinion that God knew the ending from the beginning, and there is such a thing as the law of compensation, so everyone who died in wars - whether it was the Civil War or any other event in the 19th Century - will be able to have those blessings of marriage in the Millennium after the Resurrection. Being "commanded" to live polygamy involved the principle of timing. Certain leaders were going to be born to certain families, and the way they would be raised would affect the extent to which they would depend on prophets and the spirit of revelation in the future. It would help if you were to study early Church history and look at the 19th Century as a whole. Some people will say - oh, but there were more men than women in the state, so why live polygamy at all. Yes, but again, you have to look at cause and effect, and only looking at numbers isn't enough to get the whole picture. You can't put a random group of men in a room, and a random group of women with that group, and expect to have an even number of matches. There is more that goes on with courtship and marriage than just lining up supposedly compatible people living in the same area. People who were able to live polygamy for the TEMPORARY time it was commanded had, in general, children who stayed strong in the Church, and many of them went on to become future Church leaders. Here is another idea. Perhaps part of the reason polygamy was reinstated on a TEMPORARY basis in the 19th century was to provide an example that future investigators from different countries would be able to relate to better. Say, for example, people who lived in foreign countries where polygamy was permitted. Coming into the Church would be - or will be - less difficult for them if they already see a historic Biblical pattern in place from prophets they already hold in esteem. Yes, everyone had the right to accept or reject polygamy for the time they were living in, but there were apparently more blessings associated with "joining forces," or "combining resources," as it were, than to resist living it. I know if I lived in that day and time, I could not have lived it. Hope this answer helps you out.

Answer 4

Joseph had the agency to a point. He could not continue to be a prophet if he was not revealing and following commandments. Had he chosen to disregard what he was told, he would have been removed from his office. The only way this happpens is by death.

Other prophets have stated that they can not lead the Church astray, because they would be removed by the Lord if they did.

Answer 5

The "doctrine" of free agency does not say that there will be no consequences of our choices. We are totally free to accept or reject the gospel of Jesus Christ, but if we reject it, we run the risk of not having eternal life in the Celestial Kingdom. So, Joseph Smith was free to accept or reject plural marriage, but either choice carried consequences. It was a matter of, which was the lesser "evil".

IMHO.

Answer 6

No one seems to look at this as a question from Emma's point of view. It's possible that she was part of the reason he was holding back in wanting to do this. Not to try and degrade her, but what woman would just say, "Oh okay, whoever else you want to [or need to] marry is okay with me."? I would imagine that when Joseph presented this doctrine to her, she would have been devastated and he would not want to cause her more pain. Hadn't she been through enough?

Answer 7

Have you ever considered how staggeringly convenient it is to say that God 'commanded' you to have plural wives, when in fact it's exactly what you WANT to do in the first place? Take it a step further. Tell everyone that you were in fact THREATENED with punishment if you DIDN'T do this thing that again, you wanted to do in the first place. See where this is going? I certainly hope you do.

P.S. The 'affidavits' of people who did not actually experience the event themselves or see the 'angel', are absolutely and unequivically worthless. You should already know that.

Answer 8

I think that they are held to a higher standard. People look up to them. They shouldn't ask people to do things that they aren't willing to do.

Answer 9

I don't see how that's any different than damning someone to hell for making their own choices.

And doesn't this just make Joseph Smith sound like more of a nutter?

Answer 10

Look here: http://www.exmormon.org