242 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Devyn, I think that your sister-in-law touched on what the church would rather keep in the “we’d rather not talk about it” zone. Her example is a perfect one to show that indeed polygamy is still essentially allowed, and still a doctrine of this church. The problem the church faced in 1893 is that they were going to be basically run out of business, so to speak, if they continued the legal practice of polygamy. So basically today, if you wish to have multiple wives, your current wife has to pass away before you do and you find someone else who wants you. |
I seriously doubt there will be polygamy in the eternities, but, in order to hedge my bets, I plan on not remarrying (or, in the alternative, remarrying only someone who has already been sealed to another man) in the event that my wife were to die. Of course, to seriously hedge my bets, I plan on my wife not dying any time soon. |
I recently took a family history class, and was interested to note a section in the manual explaining that, for women who were married to more than one man, she may be sealed to all of them posthumously. The idea, I assume, is that God will sort it all out in the end. Now, this is clearly not the same as living men being sealed to more than one wife, but it is a tacit admission that sealings are messy, and that some sorting out will have to take place on the other side. I assume the same will be done with the multiple sealings of men with more than one wife, and that the church doesn’t allow lving women to be sealed to more than one man due to vestiges of polygamy, as you noted. I expect this practice will change in my lifetime to become more egalitarian and less suggestive of celestial polygamy. |
Dan, |
Devyn, My answer is that we believe in polygamy. It’s the inverse of the priesthood ban: we didn’t believe in the ban but we practiced it, whereas we do believe in polygamy but don’t practice it (openly and legally, that is). The sealing issue is evidence that we still believe in polygamy, in the eternal sense. Any time the Church has renounced polygamy, it has been with that huge qualifier. |
Sam, I don’t know. My gut feeling tells me that it won’t be a straight out monogamy in the Celestial Kingdom. I can’t base it on anything doctrinal, but a number of other factors. I honestly think there will be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom. I do not think it will be an even number. And I don’t think women will be denied the blessings of the Celestial Kingdom because not enough men were worthy enough to enter in. I think that more women have been born (and will be born) on this earth than men. I think that’s part of the natural order of things. Males can more easily spread about their seed than females can lay their eggs. Thusly there do not need to be as many men. Can I point to any specific science to prove that? Nope. But that’s my gut feeling. If someone has evidence to the contrary, I’ll happily concede. |
Dan - interesting, but how do you reconcile that with Sams comment that women can be sealed to more than one man? Sam - I agree with you - keep the living wife alive and don’t remarry in the Temple for eternity to hedge the bets. I was aware of the ability for women to be sealed to more than one man, I believe this change occurred in the last 5-10 years. Dan E - interesting comparison to the Priesthood ban - I see them as identical - we don’t believe in them, but practiced them anyway. Do you have any quotes that infer we still believe in polygamy? |
Devyn, Well from a reproducing standpoint in the eternities, it will not make sense to have one woman married to two men. |
Do we believe a man (or woman) can be married to multiple spouses of the opposite sex in heaven? Do we practice polygamy now? I believe there will likely be some mix-and-match after we all die, so that everyone who is worthy can be exalted, but I have no clue how it’ll work, and as far as I know, no one else has a clue, or has ever had a clue, either. |
Dan #8: If eternal reproduction is not physical, then it would not much matter whether more than one man was sealed to one woman. Perhaps the spirit children would be the equivalent of step-children, or something. Of course, I’m not saying that’s how it is, since I have no idea, but rather that it seems possible (and makes more sense to me than physical eternal reproduction). |
Dan, Your arguments rest on several assumptions that I don’t think are terribly sustainable. The argument about sperm vs. eggs and gestation periods assumes that the mechanism of creating spirit children is identical to that of creating mortal children. I think that’s a common assumption, but one without much support, especially concerning the nine month gestation period. The argument from numbers I find totally absurd. It assumes that one day the Celestial Kingdom will be closed to newcomers, implying that creation and progression have stopped. Since we believe that God is perpetually creating and exalting new spirits, temporary shortages will be filled with the next wave. See the report from the Committee on Celestial Demographics in Dialogue 17(1) for an argument that there will, in fact, be more males than females. A spoof, but a good point nonetheless. |
Adam E., I believe that procreation is a power of God. As such, it is eternal in nature. We may be bloodless in the eternities, but semen (as far as I remember my biology) is not blood. Rob G., You make an interesting point about how open the Celestial Kingdom is to “newbies.” I really can’t say much from my part, as I haven’t given it much thought. |
The most important thing you noted is that it will all be figured out in the afterlife. The important thing is to have the sealing ordinance performed. How it’s sorted out in the next life is something we really don’t know. I personally think the entire idea of the marriage union, possibly even the structure, will be different that we see it in our 21st century mortal eyes. Heck, our understanding of marriage in the short time the church has been in existence has changed dramatically. Sealings have more to do with the patriarchal order/priesthood than they do with earthly (or celestial) cohabitation. I am sure this will be even more apparent to us in the next life. Will there be complex marriage? Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean you’ll see six trailers in the CK with one mailbox nor a celestial Lion House. I don’t see the priesthood ban and polygamy as being similar in doctrinal justification at all. The D&C is pretty explicit. |
Dan, So I wish I had evidence to contradict your gut feeling, but it is largely my gut against yours at this point. |
Devyn S., Have your sister-in-law read OD 1. That will clear everything up. |
I am of the view that its more likely then not that if the Feds had not cracked down so hard on polygamy we might still be practicing it today. I think its still part of who we are its just not practiced anymore. It really has not been that long. I was talking to a 60 year old sister last week who told me that her grandfather was still living polygamously in the 1950’s when she was a girl with 3 wives. They were all in their 80’s of course. Pres Eyring grandparents were in the same boat when he was in his 20’s in Arizona |
Dan #12: Do you believe that we will have physical, immortal sperm? If so, shouldn’t they combine with a physical, immortal egg to create a physical, immortal body? If, however, our immortal bodies are filled with spirit sperm, think of the amount of time it would take to make trillions of spirit children to occupy just one world. And do you have spirit babies? If so, do they grow up to be spirit adults, which then inhabit human baby bodies? This may seem perfectly reasonable to you. I think, however, that it is far more likely that spirit creation is not a physical act, rather a spiritual act that we don’t understand; and physical reproduction can teach us about aspects of spiritual creation, but not “how to do it”, so to speak. |
There must be something wrong with both myself and my wife; we’re both in our fifties (so maybe there’s been a mellowing with age), but neither of us finds the concept of polygamy to be all that morally revolting. My wife has even admitted that she wouldn’t mind having a “sister/wife” around to help share with the work around the home, or as someone to be able to talk with when I’m not around. Neither of us, however, has any inclination to challenge the government on its desire to keep un-revolted Mormons like us out of the polygamy business, and we’re used to the status quo. But we’re definitely mystified by those members of the Church who seem to be so deadset against it and who are convinced that there ain’t no polygamy in the afterlife. I mentally consider my dad to be a “celestial polygamist”, who has now been temple-sealed to a total of two women since he remarried after my mother passed away. It’s just not that big of a deal to me. |
Rob and Adam - great points - those are insightful comments. Dan #12 - to me being “bloodless” is a euphemism for mortal fluids, which includes semen, blood, stomach acid, tears, etc. If we are immortal we don’t need to eat or other bodily functions required of us mortals. If I don’t believe that procreation is necessary to create spirits, then why not have two men married to one woman - it is as plausible to me as two women married to one man in the hereafter - basically, neither scenario makes sense to me. |
Well the other aspect that I see going on in the eternities in terms of sexual relations is that that process is also one way we express our love for our spouses. There is happiness in that relationship. For the life of me, I cannot see the Celestial Kingdom as the Celibate Kingdom. |
ARJ - I hope that was a facetious comment. Reading OD1 started her down the path… Kyle M - The D&C is explicit about polygamy, and there are a lot of explicit scriptures and talks about blacks and the Priesthood ban. They are in the same boat to me - justification for some practice that was done. bbell - does that mean if there had not been such an outcry over the Priesthood ban we would still practice it today? The logic escapes me. Mark N - interesting perspective. However, in my house we both share in the household duties and children raising. My wife is abhorred by polygamy and when you read about how it was practiced historically, it is disgusting at times. So for me, it is not about having a helper around the house (we can hire a housekeeper), but about truly being one as a couple - you cannot be one when there are three or more of you…. |
Mark N: If being a sister wife means that my role is to help around the house and be a companion to the other wives, ick. I agree with Devyn: Get a maid. Get a friend. But to have my girlfriends having sexual relations with my husband then helping me clean the floors sounds absolutely horrid. The idea of polygamy is revolting to me at its very core. |
21: I don’t know of any scriptural support (especially with a modern understanding of genetics) for the priesthood ban. Though I don’t really care if there is polygamy or not, it’s much easier for me to dismiss speculative talks than cannonized revelation. |
Devyn (7),
Section 132, and on the Church web site:
That’s a pretty stark contrast from the “We have no idea…” response that was the most common reply to questions about the priesthood ban. |
In response to #6 “I think that more women have been born (and will be born) on this earth than men. I think that’s part of the natural order of things. Males can more easily spread about their seed than females can lay their eggs. Thusly there do not need to be as many men. Can I point to any specific science to prove that? Nope. But that’s my gut feeling.” Actually we have data to prove this wrong. Please visit the International Database of the US Census Bureau. At the bottom of the page you will find a drop down menu that allows you to choose a year for which world count will be displayed, including genders. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopinfo.html Data for 2008: Check past years as well. As a matter of fact, for the year 2008, the trend is that MORE MALES ARE BEING BORN THAN FEMALES. I know one would never guess. You can verify in the web site the number of males and the number of females per year of ages 0 to 4 years old. More males are being born. They almost equate in numbers during the reproductive years of females, and still males tend to outnumber them during this period. Females do outlive men, and there are more older women than older men. But there is no evidence to suggest that more women are being born. And since more baby males seem to be dying, or more males before the age of accountability seem to be dying, it seems that the number of males (per LDS teachings) in the Celestial Kingdom is not going to be as low as some think. |
Devyn–” Do you have any quotes that infer we still believe in polygamy?” Polygamy to me is pretty abhorent, and I generally expect others to detest the very idea, too. But I have been surprised at how many people seem open to the prospect of practicing it. Am I wrong in thinking that an LDS man actually can be sealed to more than one living wife. In some situations of divorce, I know there has been a real reluctance to cancel the sealing for a woman, especially if she is sealed to no other (not sealed to parents, etc). So if a man re-marries and his first (and civilly divorced) wife is still not sealed to a new partner, doesn’t that sealing continue, even if he is sealed to wife #2? I thought so, but correct me if I am wrong. PS–my in-laws are polygamous. It is anything but fun. |
26: I’ve seen your scenario, but it happened a while ago. I don’t know if it continues today. |
Not “your” scenario. The scenario you describe. Sorry. |
ESO # 26 - Yes, a man may be sealed to more than one living woman. If a man is divorced he may be sealed to another woman. It is not necessary for the sealing to the pervious wife to be cancelled prior to the sealing to the new wife. |
Thanks, Kyle and Jota–that is what I thought. |
Devyn S., What? OD 1 is obviously the most straightforward scripture we’ve been given since the restoration! I fail to see how it could be the source of any confusion. Not only that, but we discuss it in great detail every four years in Sunday School. I can see how some people might think we put too much time and energy into understanding this particular scripture. What I cannot see is how an active member of the Church might have an understanding of the issue that is anything but crystal clear. |
10. Adam E., You said, “This seems to imply that physical anatomy of a resurrected being produces spirit children. I think Brigham taught or implied this, but it sounds absurd to me. I think spiritual creation has nothing to do with spiritual sperm (or their equivalent).” I’m not sure either of you have it quite right, but it seems to me that many here are going from one extreme to another. I think that if you have any believe in The Church or it’s leaders past and present or the scriptures that you have to acknowledge that while not necessarily a requirement for exaltation, some will be sealed plurally in the Celestial Kingdom. I also think that it’s funny when we start talking about all of these relationships and jealousies in terms of our life now…it will be nothing like our lives now and many of our current concerns will be irrelevant to us there. I think that the scriptures and the teachings of the Church are pretty clear that in one respect or another that the “physical anatomy of a resurrected being” has something to do with the creation of spirit children. Note the Proclamation on the Family among other teachings: ” All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.“ |
” Do you have any quotes that infer we still believe in polygamy?” Don’t know if this would qualify, but this stuck out to me when I heard it years ago: Elder Oaks: Here an apostle seems pretty clear about pointing out that his second wife will also be an eternal companion for him, that this second marriage wasn’t just about her entering the covenantal order to then be with someone else. Not that those kinds of things won’t happen, too (there are plenty of relationships I imagine won’t last eternally for a lack of righteousness of individuals), but I found this a pretty compelling example that we believe that there will be at least some polygamy in the eternities. But I don’t think we can use our mortal measures and minds to decide whether this is or was a good thing. I think it’s one of those things we have to take on faith. One thing I have never understood is why people don’t get more up in arms about OT polygamous situations such as with Abraham, Isaac etc. — men we know have received their exaltation. D&C 132 makes it very clear that this was justified, anciently and in this dispensation. There are patterns that are hard to dismiss, imo. I don’t understand on what grounds people can really take the position that these were evil practices that were nothing more than prophetic and scriptural mistakes. |
#26 ESO - I too am amazed at how many people seem ok with it. No wonder society thinks we are freaks. We really do doublespeak when we say that the practicing polygamists are not Mormons, when in reality, we apparently “believe” that polygamy will be in heaven… #34 Mark N - I think that my relationship with my kids is very different from my spousal relationship and I see it as difficult, if not impossible, to have an intimate relationship with more than one person. #35 ARJ - whew - I was a little worried about you. I did not want to state what I thought of the OD1, but you summed it up nicely… |
[my comment got eaten by a spam filter, it appears...I will do this without the link...the talk is called "Timing" by Elder Oaks, given at BYU in 2002] ”Do you have any quotes that infer we still believe in polygamy?” Don’t know if this would qualify, but this came to mind — it stuck out to me when I heard it years ago: Elder Oaks: Here an apostle seems pretty clear about pointing out that his second wife will also be an eternal companion for him, that this second marriage wasn’t just about her entering the covenantal order to then be with someone else. Not that those kinds of things won’t happen, too (there are plenty of relationships I imagine won’t last eternally for a lack of righteousness of individuals), but I found this a pretty compelling example that we believe that there will be at least some polygamy in the eternities. But I don’t think we can use our mortal measures and minds to decide whether this is or was a good thing. I think it’s one of those things we have to take on faith. One thing I have never understood is why people don’t get more up in arms about OT polygamous situations such as with Abraham, Isaac etc. — men we know have received their exaltation. D&C 132 makes it very clear that this was justified, anciently and in this dispensation. There are patterns that are hard to dismiss, imo. I don’t understand on what grounds people can really take the position that these were evil practices that were nothing more than prophetic and scriptural mistakes. Just because we don’t like something doesn’t mean that we can declare it evil or wrong. |
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1 OD1 is clear. The Lord showed the prophet what would happen if polygamy was not stopped. There is no reason to equate the lifting of the PH ban with ending polygamy except for inspiration was involved in both cases. |
#33 M&M - I am astounded by your quote from Elder Oaks. Wow - that is some compelling evidence on what the GAs think about the issue… #38 Seth, #40 Dan, You are correct that Eww gross is not the best reason. However, I find it interesting that few, if any women, that I know don’t feel that way, while most men don’t seem bothered by polygamy (look at the responses here). Perhaps for men it is all about the sex… #50 - Manuel - thank you for the response. I appreciate it is your opinion, but value it nonetheless. It sounds like your background has certainly affected how you feel. I tend to agree with you on this matter. |
Seth - I am sure most of the people here now the differences between the various terms, but thanks for the reminder. Good luck to you and your wives in the eternities then… One question no one has addressed is how is polygamy any different from the priesthood ban. I have read some very strong arguments for the doctrinal reasons for it just as I have heard for polygamy. We know the “reasons” for the Priesthood ban were all bunk, I think polygamy will die the same way (ok, I hope it does…) |
“you cannot be one when there are three or more of you” Why not? This, to me, is the equivalent of saying, “We’d better not have any more children than one, dear, because I’m positive I could never love a second child as much as I’ll love the first one.” |
OD 1 is anything but clear on the questions raised in this post. Not only that but it reads like a third grader put it together by doing a bad cut and paste job under a tight deadline. It continually references the Manifesto but does not provide the text of the Manifesto or even tell you where to find it. It is littered with ellipses. It does not announce an end of polygamy so much as describe what would happen if it were continued. Besides all of that it was ineffective as a second manifesto had to be issued later. For modern readers OD 1 is an incoherent mishmash. Insisting otherwise is fruitless and makes one look a fool. |
Seth - this is funny and gave me a good chuckle - “I’ll be happy to start being ashamed of historical LDS polygamy, once my fellow US citizens start being ashamed of historical Christian monogamy.” |
I think really the only objection to polygamy is an “eew gross” factor. Which is utterly unconvincing and unimpressive to me. It seems the obstacles to polygamy are more those of narrow-mindedness than anything really scriptural or moral - especially when you remove polygamy from its flawed mortal applications. Polygamy is still a doctrine and I expect it will be practiced in the eternities - though not necessarily by all. |
I find it interesting that few, if any women, that I know don’t feel that way, while most men don’t seem bothered by polygamy You know I’m female, right? |
Sorry, I’m off to work, so I hope this isn’t repetitive. Men can be sealed to more than one living woman. For instance, Bill is sealed to me and to his former wife. My former husband was sealed to his first wife, me, and his third wife, all at the same time. It’s not fair, but maybe someone else has shared an improvement. |
You are correct that Eww gross is not the best reason. However, I find it interesting that few, if any women, that I know don’t feel that way, while most men don’t seem bothered by polygamy It is more complicated than a simple male/female dichotomy of attitudes. From an evolutionary standpoint, polygyny is good for alpha men and nonalpha women (whose children get higher quality fathers than they might otherwise get), but bad for alpha women and nonalpha men. The alpha women seem to be the most vocal around here. |
Seth R, You’re right- “eew gross” is not a valid way of judging the morality of something. And there are plenty of people — past and present — who have lived or are living in very happy, mature, informed polygamous relationships. That fact may make some people’s heads explode, but it’s true nonetheless. There are a lot of mature, educated polygamous women who have tried monogamy and actually prefer polygamy. |
annegb, While your comment focuses on how many women men can be sealed to, it also indicates that you are sealed to both Bill and your former husband. I’m failing to see the unfairness. Bill is sealed to two spouses. You are sealed to two spouses. Your former husband is sealed to three spouses. What is unfair? Is the adjective “living” the key to understanding the unfairness? Is your former husband deceased? |
It’s not just the “eew gross” factor. Polygamy is unfair and extremely unpleasant for women. If we dream of heaven that will redeem the injustices of this life, and show us this reality made glorious and perfected, I don’t see how polygamy fits in. Unless marriage is not about relationship at all, but some other kind of priesthood ordering factor. Y’know, me and 5 unknown women report to my husband, and he and you report to your Dad. Everybody reports to somebody, why wouldn’t that be fair. Yeah, why wouldn’t I be excited about that either? |
I find it interesting that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost can be one. Really, this is discussion has little to do with “unity” and everything to do with the idea of sex throughout the eternities. Why are we even sealed as spouses? In the hereafter do you truly suppose that we won’t have agency to associate with whomever we choose? This discussion is trivializing the doctrine of deification to the point where we are projecting our world onto God’s. My point is not that we shouldn’t think about this, we definitely should. If you do, you may realize that our assumptions about sex, marriage, children, eternal increase, etc. come with a lot of cultural assumptions which are likely a very poor paradigm to examine the issues. Are there no serious theologians in the church who have treated the topic of sealings? |
“Polygamy is unfair and extremely unpleasant for women.” Alright, time for a little definition time with uncle Seth. Polygamy: More than one spouse - male or female - not just multiple wives. All clear now? There’s nothing inherently unfair about polygamy that isn’t easily dismissed as a temporary mortal limitation. Polygyny and Polyandry are, of course inherently unequal and I won’t argue that point - although it is unclear that unequal and unfair are always the same thing. I’d also like to point out that it’s one thing to say that “I don’t think Celestial polygamy is for me.” It’s quite another to say “I don’t think Celestial polygamy is for anyone.” The first is a matter of personal opinion, the second is presumptuous and arrogant. I’ll thank people to keep their scruples on this matter to themselves and keep their noses out of other people’s business. What me and my wife do in the eternities is between us and God and is frankly none of your business. |
Incidentally, I don’t think “sex” is going to be at all what we now expect or comprehend in the eternities - if it happens at all - which I’m not exactly convinced of. |
After studying this for a while, I think the church has never recinded the doctrine of Polygamy, it has just put on hold. For many people it was a hard principle to live with in this life. For others it was not, my wife’s ancestors lived with polygamy and the fact was for some women it was a liberating force which allowed them to do things they would not be allowed to in Monogamy in the 19th century. Utah also had one of the higher divorce rates (as most of the west did) because the church honestly tried to stop cases of unrighteous dominion. Before I get rambling too much I just think we need to stop considering 19th century Polygamy with a FLDS lens. While it was certainly not the greatest neither is monogamous marriages the greatest thing ever for some. |
I don’t know about you all, but I’m having Intercourse with my wife in the eternities…it may not be quite what we have here…most likely unimaginably BETTER! Honestly, I think some of you people miss the point! Love, gender, “sex”…are all eternal, meaningful, interconnected things. Eternity will do away with none of them…they will be expanded and enhanced eternally. |
I’ll be happy to start being ashamed of historical LDS polygamy, once my fellow US citizens start being ashamed of historical Christian monogamy. |
Manuel, just about all the gripes you have with the practice are confined to the mortal practice of polygamy. Except for your unfortunate statement: “I feel sad because I don’t think true love can exist between one man and several women; nor between one woman and several men.” You’re right. That is sad. A sad limitation that you have placed on the human heart. And it isn’t true either. I have known men who were as truly in love with their deceased wife AND with the wife of their re-marriage as any man who ever loved “just one” woman. And you’d like to make the claim here that this man does not “truly love” both? What gives you the profound insight to say that? Shun the practice for yourself if you wish. But I’d be careful about making sweeping generalizations about what the human heart - and the godly heart - is or is not capable of. |
For what it’s worth, I haven’t commented yet, but I don’t categorically denounce polygamy while my husband is violently opposed to it. I do think that anyone not willing to live the law of polygamy should the Lord request it will certainly not have to worry about it. |
The comments appear to be screwed up. Post #55 should follow #59. And Wordpress has been denying comment access for the past two hours. |
Laminate it! |
It is soooooo encouraging to read comments from others that have a problem with the practice of polygamy, both in this life and the next. The biggest problem I have with the practice of a man having multiple wives is that it seems so blatently sexist. How can a woman be on equal footing with her husband if he has more than one wife? |
Manuel: Thank you! You so eloquently said exactly what I feel. Ditto ditto ditto to all of it. |
While polygamy may be unappealing (or worse yet, appealing to some!), the whole notion of some of the additional wives being “exes” is just doubly unpleasant. “Love thine enemy” takes on a whole new twist here. |
Well, I am happy to hear many others have negative sentiments about the sometimes practice, sometimes doctrine, sometimes principle of polygamy, beyond what some wanted to minimize as a “eew factor.” Warning: extremely opinionated statements follow: I think polygamy is both immoral and destructive. I think it goes against the most important unit of society: the family. I think it is unfair, sexist, opressive and sometimes even vile. I don’t think it works. I don’t think it works demographically, emotionally, sexually, romantically, nor financially. I feel sad because I don’t think true love can exist between one man and several women; nor between one woman and several men. And no, I do not agree this is comparable to having several children: what a silly comparison. I feel sad for anyone who has to observe such vile practice for the sake of their faith and I feel sad for everyone who had to observe it, whether within or outside the boundaries of the Church. I actually feel polygamy is a bit to blame for what I have perceived as some loss of romantic love in the LDS culture, which I esteem as one of the highest and purest forms of love (yes, even beyond charity). I feel it made of one of the most wonderful experiences in life a raw duty to be fulfilled. These feelings and views are strongly related to my background, my education, personal experiences, the types of bonds and the respect that exists within my immediate family, and in general the culture that I grew up in. I do not expect anyone to share them, and I have no explanation, nor documentation, nor any apology for them. These are part of my core moral values and manifestos, speeches, scriptures, prophets, apostles, records, and arguments are all beneath these values, because these values are who I am. Therefore, I do not condemn anyone who doesn’t feel the same way. I do not condemn anyone who believes in the possibility of polygamy as a true principle. I don’t condemnd and I actually praise all those who even today practice it in an effort to be obedient to the teachings of the men they revere as religious leaders, prophets, etc. Yes, that means I do respect even the views of fundamentalists who claim the Church in Utah went astray for banning polygamy. I respect their culture, and I respect their faith. Therefore, Devyn, We do practice posthumous polygamy in the Church. I believe it is wrong. I believe it will need to be adressed sooner or later, just like other wrong things in the Church have been adressed. I believe line upon line, precept upon precept, and inasmuch as we are willing to accept, God will keep on perfecting His Church and His saints until all these evils are done away with. This is a response to Devyn, for the purpose of having an account of how one member of the Church feels about this issue. |
#47, That’s the spirit! Classic. |
I think it’s a mistake to wholly support or condemn polygamy. It’s a complex issue and it’s not just a ‘Mormon issue’ either. Based on our scripture and history, I’m not sure how someone could think that polygamy is merely historical artifact or a practice rather than a doctrine (akin to the priesthood ban for blacks). For those who were properly sealed into plural marriages, where the ordinances were “sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise” (as it says in D&C 132) I’m convinced that polygamy becomes the eternal family principle. |
Thanks Danithew and everyone else - sorry the comments are all jumbled. Hopefully they will right themselves as it is hard to follow the discussion. Catherine and Lulubelle - thanks for your comments. It seems to me that women have many more issues with polygamy than men - hmmm, wonder why that is the case? |
Silverrain - I like your attitude and approach. It makes sense that it should be a matter of free agency for all (if you believe that it is a doctrinal matter). Seth - interesting points that you are correct that one man could love more than one woman, but doesn’t it go both ways? Couldn’t a woman love more than one man? Where is the fairness in polygamy? |
#47 arj, my sealing to my second husband had to be cancelled before I could be sealed to Bill. And my second husband had to consent, which he took his sweet time doing, although we’d been divorced over six years and he was remarried. He was reluctant, honestly. He was a psycho religious jerk. Although, today, a woman can be sealed to more than one man if she, and they, are dead. The feeling is that things will be worked out after the millenium, but she will be allowed only one of them. |
And I agree with your sister, Devyn, we do believe in and practice polygamy as a principle, although not as a legality or institution in “real” life. We just stopped talking about it. |
Glad to finally be diagnosed as an alpha woman–that must be my problem! Devyn–I can’t tell if your comment came before or after Seth’s but I think he wants to emphasize that the term we are using “polygamy” encompases both multiple wives and multiple husbands. We are, in fact, discussing polygyny. Polygyny seems to be in direct conflict with our current idea of marriage as a partnership. One wife+one husband=marriage where both partners are equal. wife+wife+wife=Husband means that each woman is only worth and only gets 1/3rd a man. Clearly, that is inexquitable. |
Devyn, Read my previous comment (at the moment, it’s #50). The one with the definitions. Polygamy is NOT just one man and multiple wives. It includes all multiple spouse relationships. Polygamy actually is equal. It is polygyny and polyandry that are unequal. And if you think that one man - multiple wives is the only thing Joseph had in mind, you haven’t really investigated his life closely enough. |
“And if you think that one man - multiple wives is the only thing Joseph had in mind, you haven’t really investigated his life closely enough.” Huh? |
Seth - Thanks for the clarification. I was using the term polygamy as traditionally viewed (one man with >1 wife). I would agree that polygyny/polyandry are unequal. You are inferring that Joseph was ok with polygamy generally? wow - that is something new. What references/sources do you have for that? It is certainly “fair”, but not something I have heard before. |
Come on Devyn. Everyone around here knows Joseph married women who were already married to other men. |
Seth–true, but the D&C really only talks about men with multiple wives and specifically condemns women who get involved with more than one man. I cannot account for the divergence between scripture and practice, but I think we see it often enough and generally agree that the “true principle” is not the way in which we live it, but what the scripture holds. So I don’t think there is an allowance for women to be sealed to multiple men (except dead ones, with the caveat that it will all be worked out). |
72: The wives of JSJ |
ESO, What about D&C 132:41? “41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed.” Don’t know about you, but that passage seems to be saying that if the woman WAS however “appointed by holy anointing” (which I assume refers to the “New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage”) it would NOT be adultery for her to be with more than one man. Hmmm… |
ESO,
It definitely seems that way, but what if these notions of marriage and equality are just social constructs — useful ones for our time and place — and marriage in reality has nothing to do with equality, individual worth, etc.? I accept that Polygyny is sometimes sanctioned by God, but I don’t accept that God sanctions the practice because one gender is inferior or less valuable, so in my mind, there must be another reason. I also don’t believe God sanctions things that are inherently bad. |
Seth–conceivable interpretation, but, especially considering that JSJrs wives who had other husbands kept the husbands in the dark about marrying JSJr, it seems unlikely. Dan E.–you are very correct that our current notion of mariage IS a social construct and is subject to time and place. I do not expect that Rachel and Jacob’s marriage will be adjudicated using the same criteria as mine, given our very different lives. That said, the Proclamation on the Family, psuedo scripture that it is, clearly depicts marriage as more of an equal partnership set up than one including concubines. My own ancestors were polygamous–my great grandfather (who I knew) was the son of a polygamous union. While all family members have access to the journals and records of that union, we interpret them in very different ways, with each succeeding generation being less enamoured of the situation. For example, my grandmother reports that HER grandmother was at a great advantage in being a 3rd wife because when they married at the ages of 16 (her) and 55 (him), she already knew he was a good provider (seeing the evidence in his other families). I understand my grandmother’s desire to defend her grandmother’s marriage, but if that is the best thing you can say about the marriage, it is not one I would be particularly excited about. It is making lemmons from lemmonade. The fact is, my great-great grandmother cared for all the kids and wives and husband in their old age and was a young widow. She was forced to drop out of school and a vibrant young womanhood because she was married to an old man (a marriage arranged by her father, an age-mate of her husband). When we start glorifying polygyny, we get to the point where we are painting a rosy picture of happy helpers and independent women (who could not depend on their husbands) akin to the myth of the happy slaves we all recognize as a terrible fiction. Some day I’ll write about my experiences with polygyny up close and personal–it is not nearly as emasculating as we imagine it to be. |
ESO, Being a good providor was the best thing you could say for most husbands, polygamous or not, in the 19th century. Heber C. Kimball would not have all the sudden become a doting husband and father without his plural wives. |
Kyle–I realize it is something, but I wouldn’t really want to marry my dad’s friend who already had 2 wives (who were sisters). I’d rather be single, especially at age 16. |