Charles Penrose on Plural Marriage

[JB]

I'm reposting this, with a few small additions, from my LDS-Evangelical dialogue blog:

In 1882, the Juvenile Instructor Office published Charles William Penrose's short book "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple: Or, Leaves from the Tree of Life (on which, as a nineteenth-century publication, copyright has undoubtedly expired). Charles Penrose later taught theology at Brigham Young Academy, because a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1904, and became a member of the First Presidency in 1911; he died in 1925. In one of those 'leaves', the one dedicated to the subject of marriage, Penrose naturally takes a few paragraphs to explain plural marriage. In order to understand what he says later, one must know this:

No man or woman, separate and single, can attain the fullness of celestial glory. Perfection of being, happiness, exaltation or dominion, is unattainable by either sex alone. (Charles W. Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882], 48)

Men and women may be saved in a separate and single state, but they cannot be exalted into the fullness of celestial glory without union in celestial marriage, because that is a state of perfection and comprehends the gift of perpetual increase, in which there are endless dominion and the exercise of all the powers of immortal manhood and womanhood united as one in the everlasting covenant. (Charles W. Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882], 50-51)

Now, as for his views on plural marriage in particular:

In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory. Is there any reason why this should not be so? Is not each of these wives entitled to her position in eternity, by virtue of the sealing power which made her part of the man? Why should one enter into the exaltation of the celestial world, and the other be relegated to singleness and servitude? They all become one in the patriarchal order of family government. And if this be the case in heaven, why should not similar positions so far as possible exist on earth? Is earth holier than heaven? If a man receives from the Lord more wives than one under the sealing ordinances of celestial marriage, where is the moral wrong? They belong to no other man, but are his by mutual consent of all the interested parties, and they live together in the marriage stage, one as much as the other.

In this position there are occasions for the exercise of patience, forebearance, charity, self-sacrifice and the exercise of all the virtues to a far greater degree than in any other. In this plural family relation, an experience can be gained that no other condition in life affords, and the parties who so live and keep the law will be, in the very nature of things, prepared for a wider sphere of dominion, and power, and dignity, and might in the eternal world, than those who have only experienced the monogamic condition. They will, therefore, if they endure unto the end, go forward into the highest degree of exaltation, while their posterity will multiply at an ever-increasing ratio, until worlds will be filled by their generations and they will ascend to the majesty and splendor of the Gods on high. (Charles W. Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882], 51-52)

I'd like to get a bit of feedback from Latter-day Saints (with non-LDS input welcome, of course) on what you think of Penrose's explanation of plural marriage and exaltation now.

What sort of view of women and of marriage is embodied in Penrose's writing? Given how he argues for eternal polygyny, how might he approach the relatively few instances of genuine polyandry in LDS history, such as Joseph Smith's marriages to a number of already-married women? What does one make of Penrose's justification of plural marriage? For Latter-day Saints in particular, how do you approach his stated rationale given that earthly polygamy is now forbidden by the mainstream LDS Church? Do you feel less prepared for exaltation because of your confinement to a 'monogamic condition'?

[OtherCheek]

I'm reposting this, with a few small additions, from my LDS-Evangelical dialogue blog:

In 1882, the Juvenile Instructor Office published Charles William Penrose's short book "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple: Or, Leaves from the Tree of Life (on which, as a nineteenth-century publication, copyright has undoubtedly expired). Charles Penrose later taught theology at Brigham Young Academy, because a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1904, and became a member of the First Presidency in 1911; he died in 1925. In one of those 'leaves', the one dedicated to the subject of marriage, Penrose naturally takes a few paragraphs to explain plural marriage. In order to understand what he says later, one must know this:

No man or woman, separate and single, can attain the fullness of celestial glory. Perfection of being, happiness, exaltation or dominion, is unattainable by either sex alone. (Charles W. Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882], 48)

Men and women may be saved in a separate and single state, but they cannot be exalted into the fullness of celestial glory without union in celestial marriage, because that is a state of perfection and comprehends the gift of perpetual increase, in which there are endless dominion and the exercise of all the powers of immortal manhood and womanhood united as one in the everlasting covenant. (Charles W. Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882], 50-51)

Now, as for his views on plural marriage in particular:

In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory. Is there any reason why this should not be so? Is not each of these wives entitled to her position in eternity, by virtue of the sealing power which made her part of the man? Why should one enter into the exaltation of the celestial world, and the other be relegated to singleness and servitude? They all become one in the patriarchal order of family government. And if this be the case in heaven, why should not similar positions so far as possible exist on earth? Is earth holier than heaven? If a man receives from the Lord more wives than one under the sealing ordinances of celestial marriage, where is the moral wrong? They belong to no other man, but are his by mutual consent of all the interested parties, and they live together in the marriage stage, one as much as the other.

In this position there are occasions for the exercise of patience, forebearance, charity, self-sacrifice and the exercise of all the virtues to a far greater degree than in any other. In this plural family relation, an experience can be gained that no other condition in life affords, and the parties who so live and keep the law will be, in the very nature of things, prepared for a wider sphere of dominion, and power, and dignity, and might in the eternal world, than those who have only experienced the monogamic condition. They will, therefore, if they endure unto the end, go forward into the highest degree of exaltation, while their posterity will multiply at an ever-increasing ratio, until worlds will be filled by their generations and they will ascend to the majesty and splendor of the Gods on high. (Charles W. Penrose, "Mormon" Doctrine, Plain and Simple [Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1882], 51-52)

I'd like to get a bit of feedback from Latter-day Saints (with non-LDS input welcome, of course) on what you think of Penrose's explanation of plural marriage and exaltation now.

What sort of view of women and of marriage is embodied in Penrose's writing? Given how he argues for eternal polygyny, how might he approach the relatively few instances of genuine polyandry in LDS history, such as Joseph Smith's marriages to a number of already-married women? What does one make of Penrose's justification of plural marriage? For Latter-day Saints in particular, how do you approach his stated rationale given that earthly polygamy is now forbidden by the mainstream LDS Church? Do you feel less prepared for exaltation because of your confinement to a 'monogamic condition'?

Hi, JB

I assume you are focusing on this phrase

"the parties who so live and keep the law, will be, ... prepared for a wider sphere of dominion, and power, and dignity, and might in the eternal world, than those who have only experienced the monogamic condition."

Well, we do have a verse in the D&C that reads thusly:
"18 Whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.
19 And if a person gains more aknowledge and intelligence in this life through his bdiligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the cadvantage in the world to come.And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come" (D&C 130:18-19). I guess some of us will acquire and posess more experience and knowledge than others in this life, and so some others of us will have some additional learning to do in the next life so we can qualify for the same blessings that others do.

I think Charles Penrose is speaking of the LDS doctrine that marriages sealed by Holy Priesthood of God, through Priesthood ordinances and covenants, are in truth SEALED. And no power in heaven or earth can break that bond, as long as those covenants are honored by those entering into it. And whether that covenant is made between one man and one woman, or one man and more than one woman, that sealing remains in force throughout eternity.

In this chapter from Gospel Principles, I don't read anything that would disagree with what Bro. Penrose also wrote. The only difference between then and now is the PRACTICE of Plural Marriage. Just because the practice is not in force today, it does not destroy the sealing of these marriages that were solemnized in Bro. Penrose's day in the Temple.

[Cow Poke]

I think Charles Penrose is speaking of the LDS doctrine that marriages sealed by Holy Priesthood of God, through Priesthood ordinances and covenants, are in truth SEALED. And no power in heaven or earth can break that bond, as long as those covenants are honored by those entering into it. And whether that covenant is made between one man and one woman, or one man and more than one woman, that sealing remains in force throughout eternity.

Would this, perhaps, have pre-dated the later practice of "un-sealing" sealed marriages, in the case of divorce?

(I think the actual term was "sealing cancellation", maybe.)

[OtherCheek]

Would this, perhaps, have pre-dated the later practice of "un-sealing" sealed marriages, in the case of divorce?

(I think the actual term was "sealing cancellation", maybe.)

Quoting from my earlier comment:

"as long as those covenants are honored by those entering into it."

I guess if covenants are not honored by those entering into them, then there would be a problem with them remaining in force.

[Cow Poke]

I guess if covenants are not honored by those entering into them, then there would be a problem with them remaining in force.

Thanks. Makes sense.

[Sparko]

Isn't Penrose's example the same as the one the Sadducees used on Jesus but with a man remarrying instead of a woman?

Jesus didn't say that all of the woman's earthly husbands would be married to her, but that there is no marriage in the resurrection.

23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

[OtherCheek]

Isn't Penrose's example the same as the one the Sadducees used on Jesus but with a man remarrying instead of a woman?

Jesus didn't say that all of the woman's earthly husbands would be married to her, but that there is no marriage in the resurrection.

23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Correct. That is why marriages are finalized here, and not in heaven.

[Sparko]

Correct. That is why marriages are finalized here, and not in heaven.

You might have missed the part where the marriages where finalized here on earth to the woman, yet Jesus still answered that there was no marriage in the resurrection. If he wanted to say "oh well, since the marriages were finalized here, she would be married to ALL of them in the resurrection" then he would have said that.

[Sparko]

So if Barry marries Sue, and then Barry dies, and Sue marries Bob and then Sue dies, does that mean that in heaven, after Bob dies, that Bob is married to Barry too?

[OtherCheek]

You might have missed the part where the marriages where finalized here on earth to the woman, yet Jesus still answered that there was no marriage in the resurrection. If he wanted to say "oh well, since the marriages were finalized here, she would be married to ALL of them in the resurrection" then he would have said that.

Marriages not sealed by the authority of the Priesthood, are not in force after this life.

[Sparko]

Marriages not sealed by the authority of the Priesthood, are not in force after this life.

I thought your "priesthood" was a restoration of the Jewish priesthood? So why wouldn't they have sealed their marriages the same as you do?

[OtherCheek]

I thought your "priesthood" was a restoration of the Jewish priesthood? So why wouldn't they have sealed their marriages the same as you do?

I don't know what you mean by Jewish Priesthood. That term isn't familiar to me. I am talking about the Melchizedek Priesthood. And ordinances performed by the same. Not the priesthood of Levi, or Aaron. This would be the higher priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know what you mean by Jewish Priesthood. That term isn't familiar to me. I am talking about the Melchizedek Priesthood. And ordinances performed by the same. Not the priesthood of Levi, or Aaron. This would be the higher priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

When did this Mechizedek-ish teaching first appear in Mormonism, OC? Specifically, is there any teaching of the "doctrine" of this priesthood prior to 1834?

[Sparko]

I don't know what you mean by Jewish Priesthood. That term isn't familiar to me. I am talking about the Melchizedek Priesthood. And ordinances performed by the same. Not the priesthood of Levi, or Aaron. This would be the higher priesthood after the order of Melchizedek.

how conveeeeeeenient.

surprising Jesus never mentioned this priesthood to the Jews nor to the saducees when they asked this question.

[DesertBerean]

Penrose says marriage affords a higher level of glory in the celestial realm. This is both a contradiction of what Jesus said about the state of people in the resurrection, as Sparko pointed out.

In I Corithians, if Penrose is right, Paul should *not* have said it was okay to be unmarried.

In another very long thread some time ago, I recall at least some of the Mormons seemed unaware that the Bible spoke of two resurrections. Which resurrection does the Mormon speak of regarding the sealing of marriage? Would the sealed marriage be honored in the second resurrection??