263 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] â€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. |
Polygamy is absolutely doctrine. My wife fears polygamy more than she fears being at home alone. Manuel, although I can understand your point and rich feelings, I personally see no way romantic love fits into the doctrine of marriage except in a cultural sense. And I think you have to bring forward a pretty good definition of Romantic Love to have it displace Charity, the Pure love of Christ. Most importantly, I don’t think Polygamy is to blame for making marriage an economic endeavor, I think we can point the finger at Mission Presidents for that one. One thing that comes to mind after reading the comments here is that I don’t think as a church we understand well enough the doctrine of sealing, especially its purpose. All I can gather is that we are sealed so that the Earth will not be smitten with a curse. There are promises that come with a sealing, but why then? And why does the New and Everlasting Covenant require a spouse? Is it the practice of procreation? I think many things are unanswered, but when we hear them, we feel reassurance of faith, that it is right. I can’t really formulate a good opinion on polygamy, except that it is alive and well and that many people take issue with it, but others seem to accept it in the form it continues. I have a friend who has been teetering on leaving the church over D&C 132. I can’t say I hope Polygamy never happens or that I see it as a higher law. I can only say I hope more clarity comes over time and that I’ll have humility to take whatever counsel comes on the subject to the Lord. Muslims practice polygamy, Russian orthodox used to practice polygamy, and there are quite a few cultures out there that practice polygamy for various reasons. I wonder how it is justified and what exactly the purpose is for them. |
#73 – Seth – true some of JS wives were married, but I don’t believe any of them were sealed to another man which is the important point and issue here. #76 – Seth – now that is an interesting scripture. Hmm – you have thought a lot about this! ESO – I agree completely – being a 15 year old married to a 50 year old man who had many other wives and kids who were your age or older is not exactly equitable, nor does it seem like much fun. |
ESO- Celestial Marriage as the new and Everlasting Covenant makes reference to the fact that women are brought front and center in marriage. One of the characteristics of exaltation and becoming Gods is rearing offspring- for which women are uniquely created to do. The covenant, in its purpose, creates equality and is based on the sealing- not dominance at all. I have a feeling any form of dominance is generally deviant behavior. |
In that vein, JSJr’s practice of polygamy rarely provides substantial evidence of sexual relations or anything else that supposedly relates to our conceptions of marriage (romance, sharing a house/bed). One of the emphasized ideas is the sealing of people together. This gave Joseph a great posterity (though not necessarily by his own contributions) and gave many families a link to the Prophet. The reasoning behind the latter is vague- perhaps to ensure their Church commitment. |
As an answer to Seth R. comment #55 (which he wrote in response to my post #62) When I wrote the line “I don’t think true love can exist between one man and several women; nor between one woman and several men,” I was thinking about polygamy with living spouses. I feel the post would be unnecessarily long if I have to make a clarification for every line. Furthermore, I strongly stand by it. Yes, I think genuine love is not possible in a polygamous relationship; and individuals with several spouses, when the time comes, will most likely have a clear understanding, a clear mind, a clear heart, and will make a wise decision themselves. |
nasamomdele, I disagree with your statement “In that vein, JSJr’s practice of polygamy rarely provides substantial evidence of sexual relations or anything else that supposedly relates to our conceptions of marriage (romance, sharing a house/bed).” While personal sexual practices are rarely discussed or shared anyways, there are historical elements about JS that clearly point to sexual activity with some of his wives. Which in fact made Emma furious. |
Nasamomdele #83 – I don’t see how celestial marriage brings women to the forefront – can you explain? Also, to suggest that women are uniquely created for rearing Godly offspring seems a bit of a stretch – wouldn’t both parties be responsible as it is not as if the Man will have to go earn a living at that point? Nasamomdele #84 – There are a lot of instances of reported offspring of JSJr in the literature. Patty Sessions explicitly mentions assisting at the birth of some of his kids. While we don’t know for sure, I think the evidence is compelling that he did have a sexual relationship with at least some of the women. I think the way to know is to do the DNA test of the progeny! |
I don’t argue that JSjr never had children with polygamous wives, I’m saying that it is rarely mentioned, as you state. I don’t doubt it happened, but the point is the focus the Prophet had on the sealing power as fundamental to polygamy as well as the doctrine of the Godly power of creation/procreation, possibly a reason why he didn’t say much about polygamy in general. Devyn- Bushman writes and I agree that “procreation was lifted to the highest level of human and divine endeavor. Mothering was precisely what made “Gods.”" D&C 132 seems to reflect this latter argument. To continue, “And with mothering highlighted, the greatest work was not accomplished in the priesthood councils where women were absent, but at the home, where women were present and central” Women were presented in the New Covenant as partners. |
88: While I agree that the sealing power was of primary importance/focus to JSJ, that’s not why he was quiet about polygamy. Take the good, smart, educated, Mormon, antipolygamy commentors on this thread and multiply the feeling by the population of the state of 1840s Illinois and the prevailing thought that slavery and polygamy were twin barbarisms. Sprinkle in a wife who despised the idea/practice, some warrants from Missouri, and outspoken disaffection from within the church and you have a pretty good understanding of why JSJ didn’t teach celestial marriage in public. |
KyleM, I think you make a good point, andeven among Mormons at the time it seems the only thing concretely given with regards to polygamy was section 132- directed to Emma mostly. She was a big reason for his secrecy about his own practice, but the Saints in general seemed rather sympathetic. And polygamy was strictly by commandment, or exclusive- followers often cited spiritual experiences of reassurance as to the commandment conveyed through Joseph. I think Illinois’ anti-bigamy laws are a fear factor as well. One very interesting fact is the reports by Joseph that an angel told him to obey the commandment or he would be slain. To me, this conveys a feeling that Joseph was not entirely happy with polygamy himself, and kept it quiet much for that reason. My point is that when Joseph practiced polygamy, he cited the promises of the sealing ordinance. Sex, love, dominance, etc. do not seem to have any place in the original doctrine. |
As I said, I agree with you point. |
Though my comments may not convey it, polygamy (especially as practiced in Nauvoo) continues to be a trial of my faith. It’s difficult to put aside my own prejudices, mores, and experiences and really look at what marriage was really like back then, let alone the complication of complex marriage. |
Keep in mind Manuel that my comments are only directed toward the idea of Celestial polygamy, not mortal practice of polygamy. In fact, I consider mortal polygamy to be incredibly problematic given the deep-seated nature of human insecurities and limitations. In fact, I’d probably oppose my own daughters doing it and I have no desire to practice it myself (I think I’d make a rather unsatisfactory polygamist husband). But in the afterlife you just can’t assume that the same problems are going to be in play. And as for the widow or widower, I think it’s an absolutely beautiful idea that he or she will not be required to choose either one or the other as an eternal companion. I do not see any eternal requirement that the human heart fully love only one person. |
There is also a thread running through Joseph Smith’s life of desiring to bind the entire human family together with sacred ties. You see part of the impulse in the revelation about the Spirit of Elijah. You also see it in his use of polygamy as a way to bind other families and people to each other. You also see it in his obsession with the creation of the City of Zion here on earth where all would be of one mind and one heart. Joseph seems to be reaching for a more profound type of unity than I think had previously been tried. Had Joseph lived another couple decades, I don’t have a hard time imagining his calling for everyone to be sealed to everyone ultimately. A problematic notion to be sure, but it just seems to me that this is where Joseph was heading. The hints are there. |
#88 Nasamomdele – agree with your statement on women, but where it seems flat to me is in the eternal perspective. If the women are raising the spirits, what are the men doing? Kyle – good points. As you can tell from my comments, the polygamy issue is a trial for me as well. One of those things that makes me very uncomfortable if it is indeed a doctrine… |
I find polygamy absolutely morally abhorrent. I have felt the spirit many times within the context of the church, but this is the main reason I struggle to accept Joseph Smith as a true prophet. It feels to me the same as adultery. If my husband were sleeping with other women, or even just lusting after them in his heart, I would feel very, very hurt and betrayed and angry. I cannot reconcile the idea of divinely-sanctioned polygamy with a loving and good God. It may be that I just have a limited understanding of God, which I’m sure is true. But how can something feel so evil, so painful, so cruel – and be from God? I want to be humble enough to accept that God’s understanding is greater than mine, to accept his will no matter what. But if I can’t reconcile his ideas with my gut-level instincts about right and wrong, it makes it very hard to worship him and have a meaningful moral life. It makes morality into something completely arbitrary and random – if God says marry multiple women, do it. If he says kill your kid, do it. If he were to say rape, and pillage, and torture, and steal, and molest children, presumably we should do that, too? I am an active Mormon, and trying to be a faithful Mormon. I love God, I have felt his love. I have felt the spirit here in this church. But this one issue is incredibly painful for me, and it calls everything else into question. Perhaps polygamy will be reintroduced in the church in my lifetime, although I think the chances are almost nil. But hypothetically, if it were to happen, I would pray very, very long and earnestly. Maybe the spirit would confirm to me that it was right, and assuming I was very confident that I had truly received a revelation from God, I think I would try to live this practice. But just the thought makes me feel ill and depressed. I really dislike being part of a church that causes me hold these types of hypothetical conversations in my head. Is God really out to make me miserable? Normally, I would say absolutely not. But when it comes to this topic, I just don’t know what to think. This one just doesn’t fit into my overall understanding of God as my loving Father who cares about me and wants me to be good, and wants me to be happy. I take some comfort from Christ’s teaching in the Bible, that we actually won’t be married or given in marriage in the hereafter. It makes me think that perhaps all our Mormon anguish over this topic will turn out to be unnecessary. In the meantime, I guess I’ll just keep praying and asking for increased understanding, for humility, and for the strength to live up to what light and knowledge I’ve received thus far. |
#93-#94 – Seth you have clearly thought a lot about this issue and your points are well made. In fact, the point about JS sealing all humanity together is a nice thought and sits much better with me. I also like your view on earth bound polygamy vs heavenly. Given we know nothing about heaven, I suppose we could all be sealed to each other in a giant family – who knows. Thank you for your thoughts – they are a great help. JD – your summary is exactly how my S-I-L, wife, and I feel about polygamy. This thread has been helpful for me to get different people’s perspectives and views on it. I have to “overlook” the polygamy issue with JS and BY and focus on what they did that was positive. Since we know they were not perfect, I can chalk polygamy up to imperfection, if I focus on what good they did. While applying what they did to our modern eyes is abhorrent, maybe we just don’t understand the 19th century view of things (at least these are the things I tell myself to justify my feelings). |
I don’t mind the idea of everyone being sealed to everyone else, as long as it’s basically the same way I’m sealed to my siblings, or my great-great-grandparents. But I have a serious problem with it when it starts to include sexual intimacy. |
jd, Who says you’re going to be having sex in heaven? |
And what is more intimate? Bodily intimacy? Or emotional intimacy? |
Seth R–are you really asking for a good/better/best? Hmmm, would I rather have long, emotional, bonding conversations with my husband or enjoy the gift of sex…Which would be more intimate… I’m afraid I can’t really bear the assumptions about polygamy OR polygyny. I really hope this thread doesn’t get broadcast on some Baptist network. |
I find it hilarious that some of y’all are in an uproar about what might or might not happen in heaven. That people express a certain level of outrage at the prospect of polygamy in heaven is really, really funny. 1. I don’t know what’s going to happen with respect to polygamy in the afterlife. 2. I don’t care. Until someone tells me I have to practice it here, I don’t let it bother me. If we’re going to practice it when we get to heaven, fretting about it in this life is not going to change it. Assuming there is polygamy in heaven, and I’m not convinced either way, our protest isn’t going to make HF wake up one “day†and say, “Gee, I guess this eternal practice is morally repugnant, I’m going to stop.†My guess is that whatever sensibilities I have that make me balk at the practice here, will no longer bother me if it is going on in the afterlife. Right now, I’m thankful I have one, smart, lovely, fabulous, wife. I do everything I can to cleave unto her, and none else. There is nothing that the Church teaches today that modifies that in any way. |
“I really hope this thread doesn’t get broadcast on some Baptist network.” Indeed. |
Seth – I didn’t say that I believe we’ll be having sex in heaven. (I’m not sure). But I think there are many LDS people who do believe that. As far as your other questions: I feel emotionally intimate with my sister and my best friend. I don’t feel like I’m cheating on my husband when I share my thoughts and feelings with them. But if, here on earth, either my husband or I were emotionally intimate with someone of the opposite gender (I don’t mean him and his grandma – let’s say, hypothetically, an attractive non-relative), I think that might be cause for concern. I like the idea of having something exclusive and special just for the two of us – it’s a combination of the emotional and the physical intimacy in our case. And you know the theme of When Harry Met Sally – on this earth, I think it’s hard for men and women to be emotionally intimate in a completely platonic way. I think if everyone in heaven was sealed, in the sense of being emotionally intimate, the way I am with my sister, my best friend, and my husband, I would like that. Especially if it wasn’t just my husband as the nucleus, with me and a bunch of women as the satellites around his orbit, each wishing to be emotionally intimate specifically with him. If sex and jealousy were taken out of the picture, if it were truly all the people, all loving each other – that sounds positive. To tell you the truth, I think this kind of fits the belief of most Christians – the saved will go to heaven, and will all be joyful and unified, dwelling in the midst of God’s love. No real need for polygamy or temple ordinances at all, for them to arrive at that belief. I’m not sure if I completely understand your questions, and I would be interested to hear your own answers to them. |
Jota – I am experiencing a lot of confusion and pain over this issue, and am sincerely trying to understand God, to follow him, and to find peace in my life. Your comments weren’t really helpful; they kind of made me feel worse. |
I don’t think he was directing his comments specifically to you, jd. |
OK jd, I understand that you feel distressed by the idea. Now let me tell you how I feel about it. I’m not distressed about it. At all. I come from monogamous family. I am a committed monogamist myself. But the idea of having another woman in the picture does not really bother me all that much. Nor does it bother my wife (we’ve had a few fun speculative evening discussions). But that’s not really fair. Let’s turn it around. Does the idea of another man sealed to my wife bother me? Slightly more, but I’m still OK with it. Furthermore, I can see my wife and I not only being OK with it, but actually choosing freely to do it. And if my wife were to die and I were to remarry, you’d better believe I would not willingly give up either of them. Nor would I want my wife to choose between me and another husband in the reverse situation. So what I’m saying is, I understand that you aren’t comfortable with it. But is your discomfort binding on my wife and I? Should I have to choose between one spouse or the other because you aren’t comfortable with it? I’m not saying that’s what you meant. I’m just asking you to think a little bit beyond just what the Gospel means to you and start thinking about what it means for all of us. |
# 92 Kyle, I agree. Polygamy is a trial of faith. |
jd, Do I have to be willing to cut off Laban’s head if God commands me? Frankly, I don’t think I could do that. Nephi didn’t want to do it either, but he did. That doesn’t make me feel any better about it, though. I don’t think we should take these theoretical questions so much to heart. I suspect (hope?) that there is more to the story than what we know now. I hope it isn’t anything like what we imagine it to be. And if the cost is too high, the terrestial kingdom is looking pretty good. I’m serious. |
I’m pretty sure my ideas about the eternities aren’t binding on you or anyone else. If only I had such power. :-) I’m not trying to impose my opinions on you; I’m curious about what is really true. Did God really institute polygamy? It feels so wrong to me (not to you, apparently), that I struggle to believe that He could have had a hand in this. And if He did, then I struggle to understand the nature of God and of human relationships. And of morality in general. I feel like I’m entering the Twilight Zone, where good is evil, evil is good, sweet is bitter, and bitter is sweet. I don’t assume that my opinions, my likes and dislikes, are what constitute eternal truth. But what can I rely on to help me discern truth? I believe that I should try to control my temper with my kids, because yelling at them feels wrong. I believe that I should help my neighbor – that feels right. I believe I shouldn’t sleep with anyone besides my husband; that would feel really wrong. I don’t really have a lot to go on other than those gut feelings. I try to listen to the spirit, and I think I’ve felt it numerous times in my life. But I’ve never had it alter my fundamental ideas about right and wrong. Maybe it could, though. As far as those remarriage relationships in eternity – well, like I said, I find the most comfort in Jesus’ reply to the people debating about the woman who was serially married to 7 brothers. The way I understand his response is that no one will be married in heaven. I know this flies in the face of one of the most emphasized doctrines of our modern church, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me. I’m really not sure. I appreciate your comments on this thread. They are giving me some ideas to mull over. |
Oh, sorry, that last comment was in response to Seth. I started writing, answered the door, answered the phone, came back to the computer, finished writing, and didn’t see the intervening comments before hitting submit comment. Thanks, hawkgrrl. I would probably be happier if I thought about this issue less, but it’s hard to put it out of my mind. Maybe I should be praying for a cloud of amnesia to settle over my brain with regards to this issue – help me to forget such a thing exists, was ever taught, practiced, etc. |
Jota – this is not just a theoretial. We had many who followed this practice and taught it publicly. Our early prophets all practiced polygamy (I know you know all this). This is why I think many have concerns (such as myself, JD, and my SIL) about polygamy as we have a hard time believing it is from God, which can really make one question the prophetic calling of JS and BY. For me, I have segregated the issue much like I have the Priesthood ban, but for some people this is not possible. I think trying to understand where they are coming from would result in a less sarcastic response… |
Jota G, Regarding your statement below: “I find it hilarious that some of y’all are in an uproar about what might or might not happen in heaven. That people express a certain level of outrage at the prospect of polygamy in heaven is really, really funny.” One of the very basic and fundamental pillars of faith in this Church is a restored knowledge of what is going to happen in the afterlife. We don’t believe in heaven and hell, we have a complex and deep construction of the afterlife and the status of our relationships hereafter. We believe there are necessary steps, ordinances, commandments, covenants that need to be honored in order for us to enjoy certain blessings in the afterlife. We believe we will have a physical body. This horizon and this restored knowledge is elemental to who we are. That is the reason we get baptized, confirmed, sealed in temples; and that is also the reason why we do all these things for the dead also. I find it absurd that you seem to be making a mockery of LDS inquiring about this very basic pillar of their faith. I don’t find it funny, I find it natural and human. I think it is the genuine right of every member of the Church to want to know about their eternal welfare as well as the eternal welfare of their loved ones. We don’t live in the dark ages, we claim that the heavens are once again open and that we are directed by inspired men who can communicate with God. If anything, I would expect all of us to be encouraged to know more and understand more regarding everything that concerns our eternal well being. James 1: 5 3 Ne. 27: 29 |
Seth, “Who says you’re going to be having sex in heaven?” Actually, if you read some Brigham Young teachings, you will find out how explicitly he taught the ability for resurrected beings to conceive in the exact same way we mortals do. He, a number of Saints (apostles included) of his generation and many still today believe this. Talk to your leaders about it, you’ll be surprised! |
Margaret – thanks for your comment. When I was typing this up, I thought that it is good that Romney is out of the race. I am amazed sometimes at what we Mormons believe… |
[...] on April 2, 2008 by Jon W Boy oh boy the Bloggernacle is sure excited on Polygamy this week. Devyn at Mormon Mentality has a big write up with around 100 comments, then at FMH (got to get my acronym [...] |
I think it has to be assumed that polygamy is from God. It is canonized scripture and Joseph Smith reportedly said an angel commanded him to get on with it or he would be slain. I think one problem that this discussion is having is the varied perceptions of what a marriage relationship is about. I personally don’t know what the most important things are in marriage, I just try to keep my lady happy. I think that most people do something similar. This creates a disagreement based on our own expectations of marriage. For example, I think romantic love is a low priority. If anyone has ever seen the show on TLC “Jon and Kate Plus 8″, I think you’ll agree that in that family of one set of 6 year old twins and a set of 3 year old sextuplets, little romantic love exists and probably little intimacy love exists, but love abounds in the forms of commitment and sacrifice. Other relationships thrive when based on needs that we may not have. I don’t think looking through our own glasses is the right way to approach the issue. I think it must be studied from what we know of God and the doctrine as it is laid out in scripture. Those are the only clues we have- our own feelings don’t provide a good picture of what polygamy is meant to be. jd- I hope you won’t pray for amnesia, because if I know God in the least, there’s something important about polygamy that we have not seen yet, that has not been taught yet. I hope you pray to get some reassurance of that. I think I will as well. |
Manuel, BY speculated alot. His ideas about post-mortal procreation are hardly doctrinal. Unlike polygamy. ;-) |
Isn’t it beautiful how we toss anything we don’t like from BY teachings as nothing? Yet, if something came from JS, we really have a hard time getting over it, it must fit our doctrines somehow (comment 117 case in point). But don’t worry about this one Kyle, Brigham Young was not alone… do some research, and also ask your leaders, you too will be surprised! |
I’ve done lots of research, Manuel. I am well aware of the number of past leaders who have speculated on celestial sex. Just so you know, I’ve dismissed items attributed to JSJ that I don’t agree with or don’t make sense to me as well. In fact, I can’t think of any president of the church that I agree with 100% of everything they said. The reason why people dismiss Brother Brigham’s teachings more often is because more than any other leader, he put forth his own opinions as doctrine. It is also much more difficult to dismiss something that we have in our scriptures. |
One line from the post: “I think that God will figure out all of the mess in the afterlife, which is likely to be much more complex than any of us realize.” Amen to that. I think that is true in regards to all things and not only polygamy. My earlier comment (#64) was much shorter than I desired – as I had to quit mid-writing and head off to work. I wanted to just say that I do think polygamy is inherently ‘problematic’ or ‘dangerous’ in a social relations kind of way. We can all observe in the scriptures and in history how when a man married more than one wife, it often seems the first wife is assigned a higher status than the other wives and that each successive wife has less status. There is also the history of ‘wives’ vs. ‘concubines’ which I take to be a rather unfortunate mixture of the practices of polygamy and slavery. Again, there is a difference in rank or status – with wives having a higher status and concubines a lesser status. From what little I’ve observed of this situation – the higher or lower status of the wife is often inherited by the children. We also see that where men have multiple wives, the wives are often thrust into a competition of sorts where they are competing for the man’s attention and also perhaps in regards to the number of children they bear. There is also the problem of favoritism – where one wife (whether she is the first wife or not) may be favored by the husband above others, for whatever random psychological reason(s). We see all of these elements in the Old Testament, in the stories of Abraham and his wives and concubines and in the stories of Jacob and his wives and concubines. But we also find all these elements in Islamic history and culture and in Chinese history and culture. I know polygamy has been practiced a lot in Africa as well. So what I am saying is that polygamy is inherently ‘dangerous’ or ‘problematic’ in many ways. It brings about a natural basis for all kinds of biases, jealousies, caste systems, etc. and I feel these problems can be long lasting. Recognizing all that, I don’t think Doctrine and Covenants 132 is something Joseph Smith simply made up. I think it’s an actual revelation and since it states that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are exalted beings – I suspect their earthly wives and concubines are exalted as well (though I wonder exactly how the whole Bilhah/Reuben situation shook out). I’m convinced the sealing power is real and that our Heavenly Father, in his wisdom (which is far beyond our own) and for his own reasons, guided some men and women into eternal polygamous relationships. The history of polygamous relationships may tempt us to wholly condemn the practice – but the same is true of religions/churches. A high percentage of them may be in error – but some of them may be true and righteous! The scriptures tell us as much. [For the record, I am not in any way lobbying for polygamy here. I'm just trying to talk out the issue to some degree.] |
Nasamomdele – I find this quote both interesting and sad “For example, I think romantic love is a low priority. If anyone has ever seen the show on TLC “Jon and Kate Plus 8″, I think you’ll agree that in that family of one set of 6 year old twins and a set of 3 year old sextuplets, little romantic love exists and probably little intimacy love exists, but love abounds in the forms of commitment and sacrifice.” I think that part of the joy and fulfillment of a marriage is the romantic love. I think it should be a higher priority along with kids, etc. While I agree that is not always the case in marriages, I think stronger marriages tend to have romantic love in them. #120 – Kyle – my approach as well. Dismiss the quirky statements and go with what “feels” right. #121 – Danithew – nice comment. I think your comment lays out exactly why I feel uncomfortable with polygamy. My mortal mind cannot comprehend the justice of it, but I have a part of me that is really bothered by the fact that there may be some doctrinal part of it given the preponderance of evidence – I quash this, but it is there nonetheless. |
Have any of you people ever thought about reading, and hence believing, the Bible on this subject? Or is it one of those areas you prefer to believe “isn’t correctly tranlsated”? It is CLEAR that there will be no marriage in Heaven, no wives having husbands, no husbands having wives. Jesus was asked about this and gave a very precise answer. Why do you choose to believe He was lying. Or will you use the excuse that this Q & A never happened and that only your religion has the correct answer. For a level of silliness that infects every ounce of your thougths on this totally un-needed discussion (since it’s not Biblical), re-read your posts, and if you can…(which is arguably probably not something you are willing to even attempt)….look at the utter silliness your comments and pontificating elicit. Please, find Jesus, before you can no longer choose. |
[...] the recent discussions around the ‘nacle concerning celestial polygamy, I thought I’d post this here so we can [...] |
Manuel (#113) You said: “I find it absurd that you seem to be making a mockery of LDS inquiring about this very basic pillar of their faith.” I did no such thing. My point is: 1) that this is not a ‘very basic pillar of the LDS faith,’ and 2) it doesn’t matter. Whether we are going to have sex for eternity with a plurality of wives (or husbands) is not a ‘very basic pillar of the LDS faith.’ The question is not one upon which anyone should base their testimony, for good or bad. Answers to these questions have not been revealed to the Church. We can speculate. We can seek personal revelation on the issue. But we just don’t know. What I find funny is that people seem to be bothered at the prospect that this practice will exist in the eternities. Who cares? If it doesn’t, great. That doesn’t change what I believe now. If it does, then I have to assume that I’ll be okay with it when I get there. In the end, is the answer to this question going to change how we act in this life? No. I’m not going to be less righteous in order to avoid exaltation and the possibility of having to have sex with multiple partners for all eternity. The alternative is equally true. The prospect of having multiple partners in the afterlife doesn’t motivate me to live better, either. There is no principle here upon which faith can or should be based. It’s all speculation, innuendo and argument. It’s like saying, “boy, I really don’t like the star Sirius. If Kolob is near Sirius and Kolob is near the Celestial Kingdom, I’m going to be really, really upset. Maybe I just won’t go.” We know our family units are eternal. We know the sealing power somehow binds us together. We know that we can have endless posterities and increase. We know that we can become like unto our Father. We know that people can be sealed to more than one person. We know that the Lord has used polygamy in both ancient and modern days to accomplish purposes known to him (sometimes we find out why after the fact). The secrets and intricacies of these doctrines are revealed to each of us individually, and occasionally from those authorized to do so. There’s nothing wrong with discussing our speculation about these doctrines, but fretting about speculation in an open forum about what practices might, or might not, occur in the afterlife is silly. |
“It’s like saying, “boy, I really don’t like the star Sirius. If Kolob is near Sirius and Kolob is near the Celestial Kingdom, I’m going to be really, really upset. Maybe I just won’t go.†Bad comparison Jota. Going to Kolob instead of Sirius doesn’t feel like cheating on your wife. And I agree with the others. You are trivializing people’s feelings here. |
“re-read your posts, and if you can…(which is arguably probably not something you are willing to even attempt)” On the contrary Mark. Many bloggers are essential narcissists deep down. We re-read our own comments all the time. |
Trivial things should be trivialized. What is more trivial than consternation over something that you 1. don’t know will happen, 2. have no control over whether it happens, and 3. even if it happens will have no impact on how you live your life here and now? The definition of trivial is: “of very little importance or value; insignificant.” |
Seth, You really think that IF multiple spouses is a requirement for your exhaltation (again, I am not saying that it is), you will feel like you are “cheating” when it occurs? |
#127 Now, that was funny. |
However, we bloggers don’t often re-read other bloggers’ posts. |
Many people here obviously don’t read the scriptures. In D&C 132: v4: I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant v44: after adultery “to take her and give her unto him that hath not committed adultery but hath been faithful; for he shall be made ruler over many” Notice the ‘for he shall be made ruler over many’……eternal marriage as they say since the husband presides. The OD1 is only a way to bypass our current inability to practice the higher covenant due to federal law, but the new covenant (eternal polygamy) is still in force since a man can still be sealed to several wives after her death or divorce but a woman can only be sealed to one man during her lifetime or needs an full annulment to change husbands. Therefor the Oaks, Nelson and Perry of this world are sealed to two women but women can only ever be sealed to one man. So polygamy lives on in our church and the answer to your sister-in-law is that we still believe in polygamy and everything Brigham Young and Pratt and Pt Taylor said still stands true -only that we can’t live it due to the federal governments interventionism. |
Charlie, You’re condescending, arrogant and wrong about the people here. It’s not that they don’t understand what the scriptures say. They don’t agree with what the scriptures say. I’m sure when you think about it, you’ll realize it’s a much larger problem than you originally thought. BTW, what is going to happen to your mind when polygamy is legalized and the church doesn’t lift the ecclesiastical ban on it? |
Kyle, Charlie may be wrong, but where did you get “condescending and arrogant?” Maybe you’re confusing his post with someone else’s? |
This has been a thoroughly interesting discussion. Thanks to everyone! |
KyleM, ‘They don’t agree with what the scriptures say.’ If that’s the case, then they are simply apostates. ‘BTW, what is going to happen….when polygamy (and gay marriage) is legalized’ ? nothing. The church will be free to again practice polygamy as they did in Brigham Young’s day or not practice that way and keep doing it as we do today, with men sealed or married for eternity, to two women like Oaks, or three is one dies and he divorces the second and marries again, and so on. BTW, I’m guessing your a women, Kyle? with feminist views? voting for Hillary by any chance? Seth R, Charlie aint wrong here at all! |
Seth: I guess I didn’t like the tone of his first sentence. I probably read more into it that it deserved, though. Charlie: Then there are alot of temple recommend holding apostates in the church. I know many who don’t agree with 100% of everything in the scriptres. They don’t preach their disagreements from the puplit, but they exist. BTW, you’ve guessed completely wrong about me. So completely wrong. |
Charlie– Re your statement: The Church is open for business in many countries in which polygamy is both legal and culturally acceptable (even socially advantageous) and yet, the Church does NOT allow it’s members to be polygamous. In these places, like all of Africa, for example, people who are in polygamous marriages are required to divorce excess wives before baptism (just as we might ask investigators to get married or move into sepperate dwellings before they can be baptised). If they enter into non-monogamous relationships after baptism, they are excommunicated. So, I don’t think we can blame our government for our current suspension of the practice of polygamy. I think it is bigger than that. |
#136 Charlie – Thanks for joining the discussion. I think that to make a blanket statement that if people don’t agree with the scriptures they are apostate is nonesense. There are many things in the scriptures that many people don’t believe or understand. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. You can certainly go to the Temple if you feel that way (I do). By the way, to infer that someone is a feminist and will vote for Hillary based on a few statements is ridiculous. I will tell you that I am a male feminist, married to a feminist, and I voted for Romney in the primaries, but if Hillary gets the nomination I would vote for her. But, what does that have to do with anything? #138 – ESO – thanks for the clarification – I guess having relatives who are polygamists certainly gives you a different perspective – thanks. |
For clarity–my polygamous in-laws are not Mormons; nor are they polygamous for religious reasons. It is simply the culture. Christian Churches in Africa deal with indigenous polygamy in different ways. Catholics won’t allow polygamous believers to take their Sacrament, Anglicans basically discourage it, but overlook it for the most part (depending on local leadership), Mormons 100% prohibit it; many other denominations accept it as a part of local culture and a few more independent churches incorporate it in their worship and encourage it (all the high school aged girls I lost from my classes to marriage became plural wives in one particular sect–it was sad). |
Charlie, Count me as one of the apostates who doesn’t believe everything in the scriptures. I believe a much smaller fraction of the Old Testament than the D&C, but there are a couple of elements of the D&C that I really wonder about, and Section 132 is one of those. |
Thanks ESO – I knew most of that but appreciate the clarity and hope I did not offend you by my “light” response. Dan E – I discount a good chunk of the Old Testament in that regard, at least from the perspective of it being full of “literal stories” – I don’t believe the creation story is literal, Noah, Jonah, etc. I think there are great principles for me to learn, but to me they are certainly not literal stories. |
#138 ESO Actually you can blame our government because the worldwide church operates according to US practices and laws; this is why chapels opened up in Mexico had basketball courts when mexicans didn’t play it and the hymn book is just a translation of the English one with Old English hymns but no catholic Spanish ones, or chapels are almost identical worldwide, and why missionaries are all alike worldwide although the typical dress of the people is different in some areas of the world. We are worldwide an US church culturally and the bosses don’t seem to want to change it. They would also have huge PR problems if they allowed polygamists in Nigeria but not in Utah -where there are still plenty around. But having said that it doesn’t take anything away from our current practice of polygamy, the one that elders Perry, Nelson and Oaks practice where they are married to 2 women for time and all eternity. A women though isn’t allowed to do the same! Nor have the doctrinal matters of D&C ever changed, nor has the church disowned the polygamists statements of say Brigham Young who claimed that all men in exaltation would be polygamists or otherwise they can’t enter there. So in summary the church as an institution still believes in polygamy even though it is practiced differently today. |
139. Devyn S Are you aware that Temples close down to be cleansed from all the evil spirits that the members themselves bring into it? Think this is nuts? well a Temple presidency member can explain more about this; and they start at the temple chapel and then go through the entire building. (Little know fact) I’m guessing you take a few of those spirits in there?; no offense intended just asking because if there are scripture you don’t accept or believe in, well there is a problem there. Off course ‘not understanding a scripture’ is another matter and not at all a bad thing. We’re all in that boat. About Kylie i was just messing with her because she call me all those names ( :( ) |
Hate to break it to you Charlie, but apparently women ARE currently allowed to be sealed to more than one man. |
Charlie – I have never heard that about Temples being closed to clean them for evil spirits – defiinitely to clean them, but not perform an exorcism. I have never heard that before, and honestly don’t believe it. Perhaps I am one of those bringing the evil Spirits in there since I do not believe everything in the scriptures, especially a few I understand like the creation story, Noah, etc. So I guess I will burn in hell – oh well, I will have plent of company and won’t have to worry about polygamy then… |
Seth, No they’re not. Where’d you get that from? She needs a full sealing cancellation to then be sealed to another man. In geneology work the difference is only to allow the extra children to be sealed to both parents but the women stays with only one husband in the end. Widowed men don’t need any cancellation they just show up at the temple and get sealed to a 2nd wife. And divorced men need a ‘Clearance’, not cancellation, to get sealed to a second wife. But women can only be sealed to one man during their lifetime -unless the first is canceled. And if she is a widow, well then they always refuse to cancel the first sealing because they can’t ask the first husband since he’s dead. Anyone who knows about sealing policy can explain this to you, like Bishops or ward clerks who actually read the handbook. Devyn, no need to burn in hell, ya only need to repent; see I’m actually calling you to repentance :) With the Temple if you get to talk to a temple president he may explain this, if they like you enough to do so. I currently serve as a temple worker and we do this every time it closes twice a year. The next one is the week after conference when it closes again from the 8th to 21st. Ah, cleaners also do what they call ‘initial cleaning’ which is a more thorough job that includes carpets and blinds, just in case you’re wondering. |
“Although he may be a transsexual, who knows over the internet?” I wore my wife’s athletic socks one day. Does that count? |
Charlie, we’ve had multiple people in these conversations specifically state that their mother, their grandmother, and many other women have done exactly that. They are RIGHT NOW sealed to more than one man. Your information is outdated. It used to be that way, but it apparently no longer is. Sorry if that just blows your mind, but there it is. And it’s not in the handbook. Not everything going on in the Church is in the handbook – not even the bishop’s handbook (which I’ve read, by the way, as exec sec to my last bishop). |
Seth, whoever claimed that is either lying or didn’t read the letter they got from the first presidency correctly. They cancel a sealing/eternal marriage but add in that paragraph saying that the lord is the final judge -just in case they got it wrong. Maybe you ought to talk to stake president or clerks (who do all the paperwork) to sort it out. And this doesn’t ‘blow my mind’ since I know, we both know, you’re not entirely truthful here but then again I can’t really force you to believe or to tell the truth. You are welcomed to not believe and think whatever you want to. Kyle, Your wife’s athletic socks? No, just makes you SO gay. :) |
Charlie |
Devyn, you didn’t read my comment. I also wrote that in genealogy, only for the sake of the children so they can be sealed to both parents, they allowed this where women are sealed to all men she was married to, but this isn’t permitted in life. And it was started by Pt Benson. But the point is that a living man, ie elders Perry, Nelson and Oaks and pt hunter before that, where all sealed to a second wife in life after the first wife died. They expect to have both wives throughout eternity ie polygamy as in sec132. A woman just can’t do that-she can’t practice polyandry if she is alive. If she is dead and they allow it for the children’s sake but she only stays with one man. This exception is also why critics say that we practice polyandry which isn’t the case at all. But you should talk to the temple presidency and ask 1) a widower can he be sealed to a second wife while living? 2) A widow can she be sealed to a second husband while living? The answers will be a yes and then no. |
hi Charlie, |
Charlie, your objection seems to be not just doctrinal, but also moral. Is there something about polyandry that you find morally reprehensible? And if so, why doesn’t it equally apply to polygamy? |
Polygyny, that is… |
154: Especially since JSJ practiced it. |
er… has Anyone considered the possibility that this thread, (all the attention to hypothetical possibilities that have little in not any application in the real world)…are a bit banal? |
Oh Guy, You’re just bitter that there isn’t a convenient tagline in this thread for you to talk about how un-Christlike LDS leadership is. But despair not. I’m sure if you re-read the comments you’ll find an opening. |
Banal, banal, banal… Function: adjective lacking originality, freshness, or novelty: trite Nope. It’s definitely not banal. I never knew that temples were perged of my evil spirits. (I don’t believe it, but I suppose it’s possible). I also did not know the official position regarding whether a woman could be sealed to multiple men. So for me, at least, it was fresh and novel. |
Sorry guy, I learned a lot too. And if you read the initial question posed, we are not talking theoreticals, we are really asking “do we really believe in polygamy?”, which has important ramifications to some people’s belief systems. It was certainly interesting enough for you to post twice… |
Guy, any topic is banal to those who don’t find it interesting. What is banal to every one is the vehement expression of how uninterested you are in those things that interest others. |
#154 Seth, ‘your objection seems to be not just doctrinal, but also moral’ dude, no, no way. I was just trying to communicate what we practice in our Temple (and I assume its the same in all temples since they are under direct control of the first presidency). But then again I’m only a worker not even a sealer nor recorder. What my understanding is, and you are welcomed to believe or disbelieve it, is that polygamy is still the law in a certain way but polyandry is not. I’m not yet convinced that Joseph Smith actually practiced polyandry, but he was a polygamists following sec 132 as the current apostles are and every widower re-married/sealed is. Here the original post was a question and I believe the answer is that yes, we do still follow a form of polygamy explained before in #147. But the church for reasons (mostly for church property) outlined by pt woodruff in that talk that follows OD1 has stop the mortal practice of polygamy in that today a man can’t live simultaneously with two wives, but he still can practice polygamy in another way. I don’t see that happening with women since the exception is where a women wasn’t sealed in life and had several husbands and for the kids sake and so on.. |
I thought this ‘issue’ was settled years & years ago…. But then, just when you think you’ve nailed down another of those details you Might have thought was settled… |
By the way the temple is ‘clensed’ during closures, we don’t talk about exorcism even though we all know is almost the same thing. |
Guy – thanks for coming here, but it would be nice if you added to the discussion rather than threw stones. If you throw stones, most people ignore you or you get responses telling you to go away. We welcome you here, but you have to create a dialogue, not just complain |
Well Charlie, I think you and I can leave it at that. I’ve heard enough people talk about multiple husband sealings that I personally believe that it is occurring. However, I can definitely understand and respect the fact that this is not sufficient evidence for you to hang your hat on. Nothing wrong with that. I would not dispute your statement that the Handbook of Instructions is silent on the matter. So until the practice is either more open or more institutionalized, it’s probably better to simply say “we don’t know for sure.” But I do think the historical record is pretty clear that Joseph married at least a couple women who were already married. Now, you might say that the women were only SEALED to Joseph and not their previous husband. But I kinda think that’s a distinction without much of a difference. I’m sure the women in question didn’t see it that way anyway. |
Seth, On Joseph Smith, I believe he was sealed to Pratt’s’ wife while she was still married to him (think it was Pratt but may have been another) but this was with the agreement of the husband because they where having problems, didn’t get along and the wife wanted a different husband. But there is no suggestion or record that Joseph and this married women where a couple, to the contrary she stayed with Pratt fully expecting to be with Smith in eternity. She swapped dudes :) Off course critics of the church look at this as proof of Joseph’s adultery but i for one don’t see it that way. It was an agreement between consenting adults. |
Charlie, You were probably thinking of George W. Harris, Henry Jacobs, Norman Buell, Windsor Lyon, Adam Lightner, David Sessions, Orson Hyde, Jabez Durfee, John Cleveland, Edward Sayers or Jonathan Holmes. |
Charlie, first off, I’m not one of those people who typically gets all that upset about Joseph’s other wives. I think he handled it clumsily, but I don’t run around shouting “adultery” and “charlatan” at every opportunity. That said… Most adultery usually IS a “matter between consenting adults.” Right? |
Guy Noir, Private Eye, Everyone else here is mostly having fun. The issue at hand is obviously not so troubling to people that they mention it to their bishop or stake president. You’re the only one who takes this conversation to have some ultimate metaphysical importance, because doing so facilitates your trite and boring accusation that everyone in Mormonism takes everything so seriously. You’re the kind of person that Jesus would have punched in the face. Even if Pilate and all the other Roman authorities were right there trying to hold him back, he’d break free of the centurions holding his arms, run straight out you, and then BOOM: straight in the kisser. A knuckle sandwich straight from the Savior of All Mankind and the Prince of Peace. Then Ciaphas and all the Jews observing would raise a cheer unto heaven as your limp body fell to ground, sorely injured by The Punch of God. |
Seth, Yes, it is between consenting adults, I expressed myself poorly there. But I wasn’t saying that YOU where shouting adultery. Just pointing to the many other critics and anti-mormons who use the Orson Hyde (right dude) case to ‘prove’ Smiths’ adultery which I disagree with since they reached an ‘agreement’ between Hyde, Smith and the wife that she would honor the marriage during life but would then be sealed to Smith for eternity. Fair arrangement, if you want to do that. Today widows do something similar in that they stay sealed to husband number 1 but remarry for ‘time only’ and in the temple to husband number 2 knowing that this second marriage ends with death and they’ll live with hubbie one in eternity. DKL, I guess you have these violent tendencies from time to time and would like to knuckle sandwich a few people here? I hope I’m not one of those people, my face is too pretty to ruin, yet. We all need to chill and just exchange ideas :) |
DKL – you could think of it as “cleansing of the Temple”… |
This thread has gotten so, so weird. |
#173 – Indeed. |
Devyn (82) – One of my ancestors (a McBride) was sealed to Joseph Smith after her husband died. In the 1910s or so, the family petitioned the first presidency to cancel that sealing, and it was granted. |
all this sealings & ‘unsealings’ stuff… DKL: if you don’t think LDS take these things seriously… |
There was a comment about how the ex-wives were treated after the Manifesto. I know of at least one family surname whose pronunciation was altered after the Manifesto, to distinguish the “surviving” wife from the rest. |
My understanding is that “temple divorces” or “cancellation of temple marriage sealings” are no longer done. Supposedly it was because there were starting to be so many requests for them. If that’s true, then for civilly divorced spouses, niether one has to have a “temple divorce” (or get “un-sealed”) before getting sealed in the temple to someone else. It’s kind of thrown in the “it will all be straightened out later” bucket. A friend of mine said he was contacted by the bishop of his first (ex) wife when she applied for a temple recommend to get married in the temple again. I’m not sure if that was a requirement, or the bishop had some other motive. |
Bookslinger, The truth is that due to the number of requests and the complexity of the cases Pt Hinkley started to grant them no questions asked, but one still has to apply with the correct form and letters from Stake President, Bishop and applicant and ex spouse if possible. If not contactable bishop just adds it into his letter that he tried. As long as Bishop and Stake president agree then its granted, now very quickly in 2 weeks odd. In the late nineties it could take a year or more to get through since each case was reviewed one by one. But although it only takes a few weeks now its still a ‘clearance’ for men and ‘cancellation’ for the woman. And they do have a form letter for all and its true that its thrown into that straightened out later bucket. |
(just my opinion) ‘straighten it out later’ = COP OUT |
Guy Noir, Private Eye, woohoo! You’ve heard of John D. Lee. Let’s wait and see what other trivia you drop in order to pretend that you know something about Mormonism and actually have something to tell us that we don’t already know. You’re nobody ’till somebody loves you. That makes you a nobody. |
Charlie: I guess you have these violent tendencies from time to time and would like to knuckle sandwich a few people here? I hope I’m not one of those people, my face is too pretty to ruin, yet. We all need to chill and just exchange ideas. Actually, I don’t like knuckle sandwiches, and I would never want Jesus to punch anyone in the face. It’s just what He would do, and I’m as upset about it as the next guy. I’m also upset that Jehovah wanted Saul to kill all of the Ammonites. And you can imagine how angry I was to read that God sent she-bears to kill the boys who poked fun at Elijah — that’s just murder, plain and simple. But God’s ways aren’t man’s ways, I’ve just got to live with a God who comes up way short of my expectations for moral perfection. In fact, if I were there when Jesus broke free of the centurions holding his arms and rushed at Guy Noir in order to deck him, I’d interpose myself between Guy and Christ in order to defend him. Maybe this would mean that I’d get the knuckle sandwich instead of Guy, but I’d do that for him. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man takes in on the jaw from Jesus for his friends. |
DKL – you should market a figurine for Deseret Book, you could call it: “Jesus punching people in the face” and sell it for $79.99 (that is a bargain for Jesus figurine over there). What is everyone’s opinion on Mormon Enigma? I read it a few years ago and have glanced back through it while I chuckled at this thread. I think it sheds light on these issues. |
‘know something about Mormonism?’ I’ve seen the bumper sticker that says: I’d change-correct that to: want more? Being LDS involves being on an endless treadmill called: Straighten up! Do MORE! Pay MORE! MORE MEETINGS, LESS TIME WITH FAMILIES!!! sad thing is, it could be changed for the better if not Corrected with a simpler Model: Living a Christ-Like life. Love for God & neighbor; Kindness, Honesty, Mercy-Compassion; Repentance & Forgiveness. leave pretensioness BEHIND. Live your own life, NOT the neighbor who has a newer car, newer Spouse, etc. “retrenchment?” You Bet! |
I certainly envy your new-found freedom to drink coffee and beer. And congratulations on going on a mission. I got sent home from mine. But keep in mind that just because you were a peculiarly stupid brand of Mormon doesn’t mean that every other Mormon is just like you were. |
DKL was sent home? Let’s hear some details … And the figurine idea is mine — I hereby copyright/trademark or whatever. Stay away Sherri Dew! Ryan/Guy – DKL is always invoking some strange brand of Mormonism that doesn’t seem to jive with my experience either, it’s ok to feel confused. One tip: he gets really offended if anyone uses generalizations to describe Mormons, except him. |
tiredmormon, you may not be able to get a intellectual property protection on the Jesus figurine. These strike me as pretty close already. But please don’t be deterred: A figurine Jesus punching Sherri Dew is very funny. You could do a whole series of Jesus punching prominent Mormons like Harry Reid or Mitt Romney. I’ve discussed the details of getting sent home in a bunch of places. Probably the best single place to look is at the post I wrote about stigma and authority in the church, using my mission experience as an example. Unfortunately, most of the comments on it ended up being about my example rather than about my larger point. |
#183 Mormon Enigma? Yes, good work generally but depends far too much on rumors and stories from those who were enemies of Joseph Smith. Interpolate to the 21st century, then its a book based on all the gossip going around in the ward which is plentiful in any ward but hardly ever accurate. DKL, you got sent home, wow, you’re my new hero now; my apologies for all the past arguments |
#183 – Mormon Enigma – I thought it was a very interesting book with the caveats as mentioned by Charlie. Nonetheless it was certainly interesting to understand more about Emma. #184 – Guy – all depends on how you see it – glass half full or half empty. For me, I see the same things you do and say “how can I help effect change?” Either there is truth here or there is not. I believe there is truth here (perhaps not all of the truth, but enough for me). Therefore, I can either try to change it from within or “kick against the pricks” from outside. All of those I know that have left tend to be very bitter and angry toward the Church for what “it” did to them without seeing the good. So – acknowledge the good, and work to change what you don’t like… |
Guy, how does it feel to be so full of self-pity, self-righteousness, and hatred- and then impose that filth a to constructive discussion? |
Devyn: the problem with your suggestions for Guy Noir is that those who attempt to enact your suggestion are kicked out of the party for not “following the prophet”. Did anyone else think it was awfully strange that Pres. Uchtdorf instructed Stake Presidents to REPORT to their superiors anyone who did not sustain the new slate of GA’s? Isn’t that sort of thing usually dealt with at the local level. Why report it up the chain of command? Why report it at all? I suspect under Pres. Monson’s leadership that those who have different ideas, those who try to effect change from within will be quick to be kicked out or severely marginalized, even more so than is presently the case. |
Devyn, In response to your original post, please, for the sake of your SIL’s testimony, do not let her find out: a) that a man may indeed be sealed to more than one living woman, and that sealings are not automatically cancelled upon civil divorce. Rather, that man may remarry and until such time as 1) his old wife remarries and 2) his old wife obtains a letter from the first husband allowing the sealing to be cancelled, that man is still sealed to his old wife as well as any new wife he may marry. However, said man does not need to seek the old wife’s permission or a cancellation of the sealing before he can re-marry and be sealed to another wife. If this is not polygamy, at least in an eternal sealed sense, then I do not know what is. b) that the church continued to tolerate polygamy in already existing families well into the 1950′s; that the Church maintained a Branch in Short Creek, Arizona (now Colorado City), until the late 1940′s, knowing full well that the entire community was polygamous and that they were continuing to marry polygamously. c) that following the Manifesto of 1890, the Church instructed certain families, including Mr, Mitt Romney’s own great grandparents, to move to Mexico and Alberta, Canada, where they were to continue to practice the Principle outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. laws. d) that several members of the Quorum of the Twelve, several stake presidents, patriarchs, and other authorities of the church continued to quietly recommend and seal plural marriages well after the issuance of the 1890 Manifesto. e) that Wilford Woodruff himself married another wife after he issues the 1890 Manifesto. Exposure to any or all of these verified facts tends to give one a whole new perspective on things. A person with a fragile testimony, one that relies solely on “follow the Brethren” may find themselves a bit miffed when comparing establishment LDS history and doctrinal adjustments to the unpolished truth of those matters. |
Ah! I am so ditzy. I forgot to mention in my Point the First (a), that a divorced woman may never, under any circumstance be sealed to another man so long as her ex-husband is living and does not specifically consent to her request for a cancellation. She may be married in the temple for time only under such circumstances, however. Such an analogous situation can never exist for a man under the current policies and rules of the church. Why? Because D&C 132 specifically states that multiple eternal marriages for a man are approved while multiple eternal marriages for a woman are not. However, just as in Joseph Smith’s case, a woman can be sealed to one man for eternity and be married to another man for time only, contemporaneously. |
Ben There, Very true, except about the letters. Today both male and female need a letter of agreement from ex spouse (1 b) but if they refuse or aren’t contactable then the stake president needs to explain this in his letter. And, unless there is something major like the ex-wife claiming that she was beaten or raped during the marriage, then it is granted no questions asked. I agree with the rest though, especially about Wilford Woodruff marrying polygamously ‘on the high seas’ because this was beyond US laws so the marriage wasn’t recognized by US authorities. But they did stop this practice, and the Mexico polygamy, after the second manifesto of 1911? (or around there, not sure of the date now) And the reasons for all this is D&C 132. I’m bewildered as to why people wont just study this section and ‘see the light’! |
#191 – Ben There – Where have you been? I have not seen you post for awhile – hope all is well. I think that you can most definitely do what I suggest – I have been doing it for years as have others I know. You serve where asked, but also are clear to ask questions or disagree when you don’t agree with things. I did it when I was on the High Council and our Stake President seemed to appreciate it (at least he said that)… I thought it was odd that Uchtdorf said that – I could not remember that with GBHs solemn assembly. On the GC threat at MM for Sat AM, commenters said that was normal… I do agree with you – who care if the Stake President sees someone not agree – so they tell SLC – seems a little over the top… I am not sure that President Monson will be so quick to throw out. I would be more nervous if Elder Packer were the Prophet given his history… Why do you fear President Monson? |
Ben There – 192 – I actually talked to her about many of these items and told her a few sources to go to so she could learn more about it. Better to learn the truth and then deal with the consequences of it. I think that she will be fine. However, even with all of this evidence, I still don’t believe it is a doctrinal issue – just cultural. (perhaps I am delusional, but I like it that way) |
Skimming over all the conversation since, I think the difference between sealing and marriage mentioned in #81 is an interesting topic. I’d be interested in anyone’s thoughts on that subject in a past post on my blog, to avoid threadjacking. |
Charlie, you must have missed my earlier post in this conversation. I’ll repeat it for you: 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 Marriageâ€) it would NOT be adultery for her to be with more than one man. |
Question, and key, is what is the holy anointing? I’d say that ‘holy anointing’ is marriage and a woman can re-marry for Time only in the temple as a widow/divorcee or can marry for Time and All Eternity in the temple after receiving a cancellation of the first sealing. Even if that first sealing is canceled she was still married to that first man and in a way is still in her ‘second’ sealing. the point here is that the man doesn’t need to go through all this if he is a widower. And only since about ’92 does he have to request a clearance, before that if the divorce was finalized he just rocked up to the temple and got sealed to a second or third wife. I don’t know why they started demanding clearances for men but they did and it was a major policy change. But they have their reasons I’m sure. Notice also the extended concepts of marriage in the lds church. |
Also, I thought I should clarify my take on polygamy when I said that if you are not willing to live it, you won’t have to worry about it. That is made pretty clear in revelation on polygamy. No one will have to live any law they are not willing to live. That is the beauty of the plan of salvation. That is the beauty of agency. There was a time I faced when I realized I may not be able to live a celestial law. At first it was difficult to contemplate, but I realized in wrestling with the idea that choosing less than the highest order of the Celestial Kingdom is still a valid choice. That is why people could choose to live separated from God by some degree or other. We need to be Godlike enough to let go and allow them that choice. Therefore, I believe that those who cannot live the law of polygamy will be blessed according to that which they WILL live, and those willing to live the law of polygamy will receive the blessings according to that law, whether or not they actually end up living it. |
Silverrain – I read your post and enjoyed it. Well thought out perspective on the sealing power. It is similar to some of the views here on the breadth of the sealing power. I like your thoughts on willingness to live aspects of laws. However, if you don’t choose to live polygamy does that consign you to a lower kingdom? |
Bookslinger (#178). Recently, within the last couple of weeks, my brother-in-law received a cancellation of sealing from his first wife, over her objection, from whom he was divorced more than 10 years ago. |
SilverRain, “No one will have to live any law they are not willing to live. That is the beauty of the plan of salvation.” Great news. I really hate the law of chastity, I mean all them hookers are so beautiful. You’re my savior…. :) |
My response to Ben There #192 b) that the church continued to tolerate polygamy in already existing families well into the 1950’s; that the Church maintained a Branch in Short Creek, Arizona (now Colorado City), until the late 1940’s, knowing full well that the entire community was polygamous and that they were continuing to marry polygamously. LARGELY CORRECT. MY OWN FAMILY CONTINUED WITH POLYGAMY PAST WW2 ALWAYS WORRIED THOUGH THAT A NEW SP WOULD CRACK DOWN ON THEM. I AM AWARE OF SOME POLYGAMOUS UNIONS FROM MEXICO THAT WERE SEALED IN 1904 THAT LASTED INTO THE LATE 1960′S c) that following the Manifesto of 1890, the Church instructed certain families, including Mr, Mitt Romney’s own great grandparents, to move to Mexico and Alberta, Canada, where they were to continue to practice the Principle outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. laws. THIS STARTED BEFORE 1890 AS A RESPONSE TO THE FED CRACKDOWN. 1904 WAS END OF NEW MARRIAGES IN MEXICO d) that several members of the Quorum of the Twelve, several stake presidents, patriarchs, and other authorities of the church continued to quietly recommend and seal plural marriages well after the issuance of the 1890 Manifesto. YES, AFTER THE 1904 MANIFESTO THIS CHANGED THOUGH. 2 APOSTLES WERE RELEASED OVER THIS. e) that Wilford Woodruff himself married another wife after he issues the 1890 Manifesto. THIS IS UNPROVEN. THERE IS NO WRITTEN RECORD OF A MARRIAGE. QUINN BELIEVES THIS TO BE TRUE BUT ITS LARGELY HEARSAY |
Thanks, BBell. That is very interesting about your family. I will admit I was being somewhat simplistic in my several points and Imay have gotten screwed up. Yes, the migrations to Mexico and Canada began before 1890, but continued after 1890 as well, because some of my family (polygamist) went to Alberta after 1890. The 1904 “No, Really We Mean it This Time” Manifesto of Joseph F. Smith is largely considered to be the real ending of official sanction of new plural unions, but there are some documented (including in my own family) to have been approved by church leaders after that date. I base my point about Woodruff on Quinn and others, but will agree that there seems to be only circumstantial evidence, not hard evidence such as a marriage certificate or other documentation of such a marriage. Given that plural marriage is in so many of our family trees, I have a hard time understanding how so many of us can be so cruel toward those who choose to follow it today. It may not be our belief, but if we reserve the right of freedom of religion to ourselves, we ought to be equally vigilant in defending others’ freedoms, especially when it is the same freedom we fought so hard for not all that long ago. |
I’ll thank you not to shout Bbell. |
194 Charlie: Thanks for the correction. I was released from my unit “big three” calling a little while ago (FINALLY! FREEDOM!) so I do not have the handbook anymore to refer to for procedural matters, I can only go from memory of how we handled this things over the years I was in a calling where I had to deal with them, and it has been a few years since I have had to handle one of those situations. That is interesting that a letter is now needed from both spouses. Never in my service did I have to handle a husband seeking a clearance, so I was not aware that policy had changed. Thank you, again, for cluing me in! However, Charlie, I have to wonder what hookers (post 203) you refer to. In my town, the hookers are nothing much to look at, and they sure don’t inspire lust in the eyes of any men I know. Perhaps there needs to be a more equitable distribution of nice looking hookers. That way, we can pick and choose which laws to obey, and at least ENJOY disobeying those laws if we so choose! ;-) |
Seth, BBell is typing on a TRS80 perhaps? Or maybe a teletype machine? He may not have lowercase letters on his computer ;-) |
Devyn 195: Thanks for the kind welcome back. It’s nice to be posting again. I lurk from time to time, but I’ve been busy with my children over the last few months, as my wife has been experiencing some severe medical issues that have left her on bed rest for quite some time. She is doing better now, though, thankfully. These kids wear me out. As for Pres. Monson. I am only basing my feeling on that comment from GC last weekend. In all the years of GBH, I never recall SPs being asked to report non-sustainers to upper management. That struck me as very odd, and sort of made me wonder what’s up. I like TSM, personally. He seems like a warm man, and he always has touching stories. But I suspect he is very much a “by the book” man. Which is not bad in itself, unless it gets to be overbearing. You know, sort of like a BKP presidency would be ;) But in his very first sustaining, to have SPs instructed to forward names to Church HQ….it just felt odd to hear that. However, I am really pleased that HBE is the first counselor. I admire him greatly and think he is a super choice for that job. |
Devyn 196: So true, sometimes delusional is the best way to go. It is more comfortable! Nice job telling her the facts. People should know the facts, and it is better to learn from their friends and families, then from anti-Mormon propaganda, which uses issues like this for their own deceitful purposes. I’ve met many Saints who never knew Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage until they read it in some anti-Mormon tract. And it upset them that they could be members of the church for years (or a lifetime, in some cases) and never know that JS was a polygamist. it makes everything seem so secret and shady, when really we should be very open about our history, whether it’s doctrinal or cultural. However, D&C 132 would seem to suggest that polygamy goes beyond being merely cultural….whether the reader is delusional or not! ;) |
I was just trying to make sure you could see my comments that were inserted in your copied and pasted comment. I have a sister here in my ward who remembers her 90 year old grandfather having 3 wives in the late 1950′s. |
Ben There 209 – Glad things are getting better for your wife. We have one right now with another one iminent and I am already tired with one – suppose it will just be a permanent state (but a lot of fun too). Fair point in TSM. I have always enjoyed his talks, but he has always sort of lurked in the background on his views. You know where BKP stands (like it or not), whereas TSM is more cagey that way, at least publicly. It would be unfortunate if he was that way – I have been praying for him to live longer than BKP as I was a little nervous about BKP… I agree on HBE – he is a cool nerd. 210 – I have met so many Mormons who insist that JS was not a polygamist and to suggest otherwise is an apostate act. I agree openness is the best policy – we should not lurk from our past in all its glory and unglory. It is what it is and we should help our members be educated so they are not caught off-guard by things – I know one EQP who left the Church once he found out about the history. He tried to tell me about the “dark” history of the Church and I told him I already knew about those things and told him a few more. He was perplexed as to why I am still in the Church – I told him I was perplexed why he left… Let me stay delusional… :) |
Devyn, you rock. :) “Sister There” is feeling much better these days. Her last pregnancy was tough and produced all sorts of complications, but she is a really strong gal. Yes, my little ones are tons of fun. I really can’t get enough of them, even if they do wear me out. They also keep me young. I would propose that the phrase “cool nerd” be somehow used in a MormonAd featuring HBE. I like your idea of praying about the presidency, so between you and I, together our prayers should keep TSM in the top spot at least until BKP is called home. |
Devyn, how rude of me. I forgot to offer congrats on the fact that you have another little bundle of joy on the way imminently. How exciting. The most exciting moments of my life have been the births of my children. Each one has been a new experience, and a new joy, and the spiritual feeling is just so immense. Congratulations, and we can’t wait to hear about the little guy or gal’s arrival! |
BBell 211: I know. I was just teasing, based on Seth’s pleading for you to stop screaming. I am very forgiving of typing in all caps, because I see it all around me all day. I no longer see it as screaming though I used to be a little netiquette nazi. I have reformed into a kinder, gentler Ben There, when it comes to netiquette. Thanks for your comments, too. They were very Insightful (with a capital I)! |
213- funny how they wear you out yet keep you young – a bit of a dichotomy. Keep on praying. Thanks for the congrats – we are excited and I will keep you posted. All the best to “sister there”… |
I try to listen to the spirit, and I think I’ve felt it numerous times in my life. But I’ve never had it alter my fundamental ideas about right and wrong. This is a late comment, but jd, if you are still reading, I don’t think you are alone in your feelings. I think, though, that there are many unanswered questions about many things. For me, rather than use this to judge Joseph Smith, I rely on my testimony of Joseph Smith to help me accept things for now until I can understand them later, because I do believe we can and will understand things when the veil is lifted and we can see things clearly. So a suggestion I would have is not to use this as the lens or measuring stick to determine if Joseph Smith was a prophet (that to me is a potential cart-before-the-horse kind of approach, but rather to seek God’s help to try to really gain a testimony of Joseph Smith in and of itself — by reading the Book of Mormon in earnest, praying about it, and seeking a specific testimony of his divine mission to restore the Church. That sounds simplistic, but no one is ever asked to ponder and pray about polygamy before being baptized, because it’s not what we are asked to accept and believe in. If focusing on polygamy makes you enter the twilight zone, question God, question the Church, question Joseph Smith, etc. consider this: could it be that the Spirit is telling you that the focus you have on it is not right? … Think of what you do know and feel, and if a focus on polygamy distracts from that, perhaps that is what your gut is telling you — that this is not something you should focus on right now. It doesn’t bring you good fruit, from what I have heard you say. [Besides, you shouldn't like polygamy now because we aren't asked to live it anyway! :) (In other words, your personal repulsion by it is, in our current time, a good thing, since living polygamy is repulsive to the Church right now.)] In the end, then, if you rely on what you do know, what the Spirit does teach you in the Church, what you do know about God in your life, and as you come to know that Joseph Smith really was a prophet, the specifics issue of polygamy might be easier to shelf. There is much more we can focus on to know that this work is true, that Joseph really was called of God, that the Book of Mormon is true, that we are led by living prophets, that the Church is true and living (as we learned in Conference). Perhaps as you focus more on what you do know and understand (as you are obviously trying to do already, which is good), but not spend energy on something that brings no good fruit to you (and actually seems to take away from the things you DO feel and have faith in), you might be able to care a bit less about this for now. And if this doesn’t click with you, then just ignore me. :) I can say that even when I have had questions and concerns and confusion about this, and I have, the foundation of what I do know has helped me through and has helped me figure out what to do and think about all of this. In the end, it’s just not something that gets much of my mental or spiritual time or energy at all, because there are too many things that bring the Spirit and joy in what we are taught now. I’m ok accepting that it happened, that it doesn’t happen now, and that we will understand more later. Hope some of this might be helpful. Best. |
All this talk of lifelong members not knowing about Joseph Smith’s polygamy and thus concluding that the Church has been “hiding” it deserves the retort in last year’s Sunstone presentation on “Inoculating the Saints” from panelist Blake Ostler (I think — I was listening to the MP3, and it got hard to keep people straight without nametags): “I guess the best way for the Church to keep something secret is to put it in the scriptures and tell you to read them!” |
About polygamy. I have read some of the responses, and I realize that I am a very late commenter, but I want to start a brief explanation from a slightly different standpoint. I want to agree, first, with certain sentiments that have been expressed. From the extensive reading that I have done, polygamy was difficult for all parties involved. This was not an easy practice for men or women. |
217 – m&m – great advice – thanks for that. 218 – TOTALN – I had a member tell me the other day that he did not believe that JS practiced polygamy… 219 – M – thanks for the input. I like most of your answer, but if God knew there would be an imbalance it would be easy enough to fix without polygamy (e.g., create more men). We know that there are roughly 102 males born to every 100 females which suggests maybe God took that approach… who knows? |
Devyn, |
Devyn, foreknowledge of God: omniscience of God: I tend to take a view extremely far away from the Nicene Creeds philosophically speaking, but still within the boundaries of these two articles. (just so you have some assumptions) So your question would be “Why didn’t God just create more of a specific gender BEFORE the Council in Heaven?” Which is a perfectly good follow-up. I realized that I wasn’t clear. If Heavenly Father realized, before the council in heaven that there would be a gender disparity in the Celestial Kingdom, and knew to create X more numbers of males, to perfectly match out the females, we would say He knew that those X (or a specific subset of them) would definitely make it to the celestial kingdom, without question. If they are going to the celestial kingdom, without question, that a Heavenly equation might be satisfied, do they have free will? Can they possibly choose otherwise if God intended them for that purpose? The gist: if God could create the exact numbers of men to women, presumably, He would know who those exact numbers would have been (for how else would He know exactly?) If He knows exactly, do they have any choice but to make it to the Celestial Kingdom? No, they would have to go there, because He knows exactly. It doesn’t bother me if people disagree with the logic presented there. I’m comfortable on a number of levels. And if that logic doesn’t ring a bell with you, my answer is not significantly helpful. Don’t worry, I promise I don’t think people are stupid for not thinking like that. My logic is not infallible. If you do like that logic, consider again the suggestion. I’d be interested to hear a response. |
M – since we are speculating – the question of when creation of spirits stopped is interesting. One would think that premortal council was likely the break point, so that every spirit was able to make that initial “choice” to come to earth. I like the liberal philosophy (BH Roberts is really interesting). The whole question of foreordination vs predestination in your second comment is something that I get into a very quick mental tangle. I have a hard time teasing out the two as once I delve into the details, then seem to both be predestination in many ways, eliminating our agency as you mention. If we believe that God does not know who will make to the Celestial Kingdom, then He would not know what % are men and what % are women, making polygamy moot – but this makes his omniscience moot as well. I have not been able to come up with a reconcilable position on this one – thoughts? |
This is a sticky subject. It throws people like us, who believe strongly in agency and not the Calvinistic foreknowledge, off what we know. I like how you put it. It is either God knows everything or He doesn’t. |
M – By the way, I went to your blog – I like your writings! |
I don’t hold to that kind of omniscience, for the simple reason that I think it’s impossible to ultimately predict the choices of a truly free being. Which is what we are. Therefore, I’d hold that God truly doesn’t know exactly which way we will choose. If He did, we wouldn’t be free. That doesn’t make Him not-omniscient no more than the fact that God can’t make a rock so big He can’t lift it makes Him not all-powerful. You simply can’t deal in inherent logical contradictions here. |
I subscribe to the Eugene England concept of omniscience. He suggests that God is has perfect knowledge of the things He needs to know to accomplish the plan of salvation. God may still be learning in other fields. For example, one might have a perfect knowledge of arithmetic but still be learning algebra, trigonometry, or calculus. |
Devyn, I’m glad you liked what you’ve read in my blog. Up to this point in my blog, I haven’t mentioned my religion (LDS). The readers do not yet know that I’m even Christian. I am doing this because I’m taking a new approach as an apologetic: not all apology work is just trying to understand polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, temple, etc. There are many people out there who have serious questions about God, before we even get to some of the other questions of the restored gospel. I am planning on taking on the later topics (after my religion has been revealed), but I have a long way to go. You see, I have to resolve the problem of evil in the world using Joseph Smith’s understanding of God (which is awesome), I have to defend science and religion, using LDS belief; I have to even defend Christianity for a Muslim audience, and then defend organized religion for the non-denominational. I’m starting much further back than other bloggers. As sure as I’m Mormon, dyed in the wool, it will become very apparently Mormon when I talk about the questions of the restoration that I’ve had to understand. I haven’t explained that to anyone yet, but I thought you might find it interesting. At this point most of my readership is from Europe (and from what I can tell) atheist. My blog has attracted comments from atheists. However, even though the rhetoric is apparently aimed at non-believers of God, the intent of the blog is to have an LDS audience have powerful responses to questions posed by their intellectual counterparts. Though there are and will continue to be questions and divisions between us and other Christian faiths, it is my observation that the world will become increasingly divided, not by denomination, but by believers and non-believers of religion. With an increasingly skeptical and empirically ravenous world, I wanted to create a belief apologetic with a distinctly LDS flavor without disclosing my identity, thus eliminating some stereotypes from my readers. Seth, |
a random john, Thank you for your insights. I like the idea of continual learning. It is an invigorating perspective for me. |
Consider the possibility that God did not make up the ratio of men and women. If we are eternal in our genders and that God’s creation of us was really him organizing what already was there–an eternal essence of female and male-then he would have no say in the matter. |
mmiles, I think that is a very important consideration, which, if we take the Proclamation to the World seriously, seems to be a very safe bet. Thank you. |
Seth – I agree completely with you on your view on omniscience. It is that contradictory thinking that always trips me up in Sunday School when people talk about God ability to know everything we will do yet give us agency – don’t see how the two are reconciled. M – thanks for the explanation of your blog – I look forward to watching its evolution. ARJ – I too like the eternal learning concept – it is one I have felt is an important elemental truth in the Gospel. MMiles – Although God could pick more of one essence than another if He so desired… |
I like the Chess Game analogy a lot. I think it provides a good perspective. It’s not that God knows where or how we’ll move, He knows the rules or bounds to agency, He knows all the possible moves and/or combinations of moves, and He knows our ability to discern those things throughout our “game”. He knows the board and He knows the other player, He does not need to know much more. I also like that the chess analogy implies that there are many different moves to be made in completing the game- many different paths to take. That’s looking deep into it, for sure. Whether or not he predicts our moves is completely a separate phenomenon that only might infringe on freedom, though I hardly think taking the surprise/spontaneity out of our actions takes our agency. You could only make a connection to determinism if that prediction was enforced in some mystic way because He thought of it. |
Let me see if I understand mmiles’ statement: “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” So this begs the question: who gets pick what gender we are? Is that just part of the con-eternality that we have with God? Is that something that has always been a part of us, even before we were organized into spiritual children? Or were our “intelligence” states genderless, and our Heavenly Parents were in charge of that? did they control the gender, or were they surprised? I don’t have answers to any of these. But if I understand, mmiles is suggesting that the gender was eternally part of us. I think this is a valid consideration, but this is far beyond my speculating ability. did I get it mmiles? |
Yes. And it is far beyond my own speculating abilities as well. |
mmiles – Gender is an interesting question regarding how “set” it is. As a geneticist, I know there are people who are born with no specific physical gender – they either have both male and female characteristics. The parents are usually left with the agonizing decision of picking a sex for the child and hoping it is the right one. Now in cases like these I am not so sure how fixed gender is. Therefore, it is possible gender is not always fixed before one comes to the earth. Otherwise, those who have no gender are not explainable in my mind… |
Devyn, That is fascinating. I have thought about that subject with varying conclusions. One might also argue that “gender” is defined beyond the realm of biology (“sex” is the genetic manifestation, and “gender” is the psychological or something else, emotional, spiritual??. Example: there are people who use phrases like “gender confusion”, but never “sex confusion” –recognizing, also, that neither of these may be accurate.) This may be only a question of semantics, but does anyone have any thoughts about a different way to look at “gender”? I must admit that I’ve mused, but reached only speculations without conclusive results. Perhaps the constructs that we’ve developed for our convenience don’t reflect the eternality of the idea of “gender” in God’s mind? Or maybe they do reflect that, but we misapply the definition? A mix of both? Any thoughts? |
M |
Devyn, Are the biological distinctions in our bodies temporal, to be changed upon resurrection? I’ve asked myself this as I try to understand the meaning of the phrase I quoted in #234 from the Proc. on the Fam. How are we to understand gender considering situations like androgyny? These are just questions. I’m interested to see what people think. |
M – good questions. I think you tee up so many issues in that line of questioning. In my mind it seems that sex is a mortal construct while gender could be eternal, but we don’t really know what that means as you allude to. Therefore, it is possible that the explicit physical differences we know as gender as purely a mortal state and that the non-mortal gender could be something very different. Wow – that is pretty difficult to grasp! |
I’m an active member of the LDS church but somethnigs just don’t sound right to me. The YW are thought to have as first priority to enter the Temple and marry there for all eternity to a worthy Priest. Well Why not to teach them the real dimension of the law? They have the right to know what covenants they are signing for. No one will enter heavens in ignorance. I just think that in first you should share what you know and be true and straight foward with her. She would may be suffer for a while like I did but she would look for information more clarity and inspiration and find herself and understand. As woman especialy we need to keep other woman aware of what it means to enter this covenant with a priest. It means that you are ok in giving yourself unto him and accepts the fact that you may not be the only one if requested by heavenly Father. |
Just to complete I also found article stating that talks where giving by living LDS apostles in our days, even at BYU firesides, making clear that their first wife as the second would be theirs in the eternities. Do we need beter reference than that to say that yes we believe in Plural wives in Heavens and that we still practice it. Well one of them is Elder Nelson that remarried a 40 lately. |
MR – as an active Mormon, you should know that YW will not enter the Temple to be married to a worthy Priest – you need to be a MP holder to be married in the Temple. It makes the rest of your comment somewhat unclear. |
Wow. I am utterly shocked that there is so much discussion on wether or not polygamy is a doctrine of this church. I can see there is a lot of discussion going on here, and I’m really just “passing through” and doubt that I’ll be back. But for the record, I don’t know how an active (or rather, a believing) member can doubt that polygamy is anything but 100% doctrinal. Haven’t you all read the Doctrine and Covenants? Were Joseph Smith and Brigham Young liars? Are you guys really LDS? I guess that “I’m aghast” is all I can really say. We are not practicing it right now, but since when have we ever stopped believing it? I believe in it. All of the many Mormons I associate with (that I’m aware of) believe in it. And I am not ashamed of it either. In fact, I wouldn’t even be the least bit surprised if it was practiced again before the Coming of our Lord. The Brethren would no doubt resist it to the end (as did the early Brethren), but I’m just stating that if the Lord required it before his return, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised. |
BGM – yes, I am active, served in a Bishopric and on a High Council and, guess what? I don’t believe the whole polygamy thing? I think that JS and BY were wrong and it was a mistake. I don’t think it takes away from their prophetic calling, but shows their humanness. |
B.G.M. I think that polygamy is totally doctrinal, and a beautiful doctrine at that. I find the objection to it here overwrought, and mostly based on a shallow “eeew gross” evaluation. Sorry guys. I really do think that’s the extent of your objections at the end of the day. |
Returning to this thread and re-reading comments on this subject is sort of like hearing the doorbell ring, opening the door and finding a flaming pile of something on the front porch. I could get into this, and explain my complicated opinions on the subject – but I know where it’s going to go. Everyone – have a great day. |
I have a recommend, sixth generation Latter-Day Saint, and I don’t care one way or the other. I wouldn’t stoop to condemn anyone, pro or con. It doesn’t matter, really. |
Devyn (#245), |
#249 – Bruce – Does not make them false prophets in my book. I guess where we differ is whether the prophecy you refer to is really a prophecy from God or from man. I believe it was from man and not God. However, it does not make BY or JS false prophets. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but it is the best way to reconcile it for me. |
Devyn, I’m curious as to why you suggest that plural marriage is “merely a cultural vestige with no doctrinal rationale,” though you go on to say, “polygamy is, in fact, a doctrine and will be practiced in the eternities.” Explain, please? Due to lack of time, please excuse the fact that I haven’t taken the time to read the 250 previous comments (though I’m sure they’re fascinating and may already answer my question). In any case, you asked for personal thoughts and opinions, so I’ll briefly offer mine. I think the bias *against* polygamy is more a product of social conditioning–albeit in line with the manifesto, in the case of the Latter-Day Saints–than it is of any inherent problems with the practice itself. I agree with your sentiment that it is a doctrine that will be practiced in the eternities, and I’m perfectly comfortable with that. Likewise, my wife is perfectly comfortable with that. While our society may tell us that it is “impossible” to really “love” more than one person, that’s a notion I don’t hold with. If we do reach godhood, I think the limitless love we will feel towards others will also be mature enough to properly handle the care of more than one wife,and that with all the devotion, commitment and faithfulness we covenant to when we are sealed to just one. For the time being, I don’t think the world is really capable of handling the practice–nor even is the church–and so we abide the counsel of the prophets, including the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob, that a man shall have one wife, and no concubines. I’m more than happy to have just one wife. ;) Frankly, there are enough men who have trouble taking care of *one* woman; there’s no need to place them under greater condemnation by having them fail to properly care for more than one woman. As to your sister’s question,I understand the *apparent* dichotomy, but consider this: we violate no laws–either of man or god– to be sealed to another when an earlier spouse has died, and I think that is the real crux of the matter. Recall that the manifesto mentions what Pres. Woodruff saw would befall the saints should we not rescind the practice. Terminating plural marriage was a wise and practical move on the Lord’s part, and it allowed His work to move forward, uninhibited by the problems that came with the violation of man’s law. To paraphrase, “He who keeps My law hath no need to violate [the laws of the land.]” The counsel of the prophets is in line with the Lord’s will for us *at this time*, but I see no reason to break sealings to past spouses, or to deny a potential future bride the blessings of being sealed to a living husband. |
Stan – thanks for the comment. “I’m curious as to why you suggest that plural marriage is “merely a cultural vestige with no doctrinal rationale,†though you go on to say, “polygamy is, in fact, a doctrine and will be practiced in the eternities.†I was stating that IF polygamy is a doctrine, I am very uncomfortable with it. In addition, I should state that I do NOT believe polygamy is doctrinal (despite my discomfort with the many things that point to that). I appreciate the rest of your comment and think that there are some good points there. However, I am still not convinced (and never will be until I die) that polygamy is a doctrine. |
Devyn, Thanks for the clarification. :) |
I actually took time to read through the posts above. Too many points to really address, and I think most of the arguments have been made anyway. Frankly, the only thing I can add to what I’ve already said is that, having read the arguments, I think the above discussion is much more a commentary on 21th/21st Century Western society, mentalities, and taboos than it is a discussion that either supports or debunks the idea of polygamy. I think that it all comes down to is that while celestial marriage is vital to exaltation, that the details of how that will work after this world… probably aren’t. I don’t think any of us would accuse our Father in Heaven of being sexist (I could be wrong), and when we get to the other side, and throw of the blinders of mortality, I think we’ll have a different (perhaps radically so?) understanding of a great many things. God calls us “children” for a very good reason. Let’s not trap ourselves into thinking that the way we see reality here and now–no matter how old we are–is the way we’d see it if we were in an exalted state. For those who make Celestial glory, I’m fairly confident that the existence we find there will be one we understand perfectly and fully embrace, regardless of how we may see such an existence in our present mindsets. Given the great lack of information we face, with regards to this issue, I think the wisest course of action would to simply hold judgment in abeyance, and concentrate more on faithfully keeping our covenants. If we do that, the Lord has promised us that it will all work out in the end. |
[...] #54 DKL comment #36 TStevens comment #18 Ryan comment #19 DKL speaking to a troll comment #170 and comment #182 Steve Evans comment #994 on “Police Beat Roundtable [...] |
[...] DKL “taking it on the jaw for Jesus†comment #170 and #182 [...] |
I’m reading “In Sacred Loneliness- The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith” right now. It’s a good read for anyone interested in the revelatory days of polygamy. I think that technically, eternal polygamy is still part of our doctrine but I feel like the church is trying a “phase out method” on this one. It might look kind of lame for Pres. Monson to receive a revelation that JS was a “little” of with his polygamy doctrine. But it would be nice if the church could find a way to clear up the multiple male sealings. Maybe the church could just change the policy on male only multiple sealings. I’ve heard too many people say that they have may vows with their spouses to not remarry is case of the death of their spouse, in fear the woman might end up belonging to another man or that their might be multiple women. That is just sad. FYI-During the prophet Joseph Smith’s life he was sealed to men as well as women. So, when all is said and done??? It wasn’t about one man many wives; it was about being sealed to the man with the highest priesthood in order to be “sealed” up into the highest degree of eternal life. I think it was just more FUN to marry the women for the added perks :) |
[...] a random John: 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. [...] |
Polygamy is wrong and not acceptable, we know it when we think with common sense. Our church accepted that at the beginning in order to increase members rapidly, it’s obvious. God never wants us to exercise such a thing, please wake up. |
This article is right in stating that absolutely nothing topical functions. A basic way can also let you know what you might be allergic too. Understanding is fifty percent the battle and once I reduce those out of my diet, my issue entirely cleared. |
Have you people not read Section 132? Although the church has morphed the meaning of the “new and everlasting covenant” over time, it is clear that it refered to polygamy in that section. According to 132, you have to be a polygamist to make it to the CK. Now, how does anyone in the church make sense of Section 132 and Jacob 2? Although they tried to gloss over the problem in the chapter headings in the BOM by saying “the unauthorized practice of polygamy is prohibited,” there is nothing in Jacob 2 that condones polygamy authorized or not. It is strictly forbidden in the BOM without exception! I can’t reconcile these two. |
@ Mike this rationale doesn’t hold water. Joseph Smith and Brigham young married other mens wives (don’t believe me look at the church’s geneology site and see). |
Just throwing my two cents in. |