Another polygamy poll

[chiaroscuro]

I, too, know of cases where widowed men have been sealed to 2nd wives. I can't see how either of their marriages would be dissolved in the Celestial Kingdom.

Isn't that what will happen if the wife has already been sealed to a husband?

Or has policy changed on women being sealed to more than one husband?

[liz3564]

However, I also feel that both monogamy and polygamy will exist in the highest degree of glory.

Do you think that?

Or do you hope that?

Would it matter to someone who fully, completely, and wholly accepts the restored gospel?

Are you suggesting that I don't?

If you are, to put it mildly, I'm offended by your suggestion.

In answer to your question, which frankly seems to be a play on words, I suppose I utilized the word "think" when I should have, perhaps, used the word "perceived" or "interpreted".

[Connolly]

Are you suggesting that I don't?

If you are, to put it mildly, I'm offended by your suggestion.

I apologize if you found my reply offensive as that surely was not my intent.

The questions I asked are fundamentally germane to the thread as they question the motivation behind the discussion. Not just your motivation, but the motivation of others who have replied as well.

I don't know you or your motivation or how you feel about plural marriage doctrines, I was trying to find out because there are many members who have issues with the plural marriage doctrine, and they desperately hope that they will never have to live that law.

So do you think that there will be both monogamy and polygamy, or do you hope that there will be monogamy?

[liz3564]

I don't know you or your motivation or how you feel about plural marriage doctrines, I was trying to find out because there are many members who have issues with the plural marriage doctrine, and they desperately hope that they will never have to live that law.

So do you think that there will be both monogamy and polygamy, or do you hope that there will be monogamy?

I honestly believe that both monogamy and polygamy will exist, and that both forms of marriage are not only acceptable to God, but worthy of exhaltation.

Would I personally have a problem living in a polygamous marriage? Yes. I have never hidden that fact, and if you have read any of my posts, then you are aware of it.

However, because of personal experiences I have had...one, in particular, involving a friend of mine who passed away whose husband remarried (the situation is mentioned earlier in this thread), I do see that there are situations where polygamy can exist and work in an eternal sphere.

I do think that those who struggle with the concept of plural marriage can take comfort in the fact that the requirement for reaching the highest degree of glory is celestial marriage. Celestial marriage has been defined by our modern prophets as both monogamous and polygamous marriages performed under the proper authority.

Obviously, polygamy will exist. Those wives who have been sealed to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc. are not going to be "taken away" from them. It is an eternal law, and yes, all will need to be accepting of this, but not all are going to be required to live it.

[SlackTime]

Like liz, I personally don't think polygamy would be easy to live, I much prefer monogamy. But I can't see the Lord going back on His promises to those who have been sealed to their wives, I have to believe that those families will be restored intact.

As for polygamy being required of everybody, you'd have to show me where there will be such an imbalance in the ratios of men to women that there would be (a minimum) of twice as many women as men exalted. Since we have nothing that demonstrates this in the scriptures I can't believe that every man will be a polygamist or even that a majority will be.

Now maybe someone could argue that since we will be sealed into one vast family of God, we'll be sealed together in such a way as to make it unimportant who you were sealed to on earth and that the fact that you were sealed into the family is all that is important. I can't buy that concept. To me, my relationship with my wife will always be special, and if God required of me that I be a polygamist, then I would hope that I would be able to develop a special relationship with each and every wife I was given. If I couldn't I would feel a failure as a husband, and if I succeeded then I would expect that relationship to continue into the eternities as God had promised it to me.

-SlackTime

[Abulafia]

Okay, I'll bite, even though this is a very old thread!

In my opinion, none of this makes any sense.

We are all, (from the beginning of the human race to the end...) bound together as a human family simply by virtue of our presence here on earth. How on earth can any ordinance over-ride that all important fact.

We are all family anyway. No ordinance can change that..

As for whether polygamy or monogamy will reign in heaven, well....who knows. I certainly don't.

If as President Hinckley so recently said, it is a place of eternal progression and learning....I'm just happy with that.

[Brian's Mom]

I have to wonder why all of these sealings have to be done on earth or by proxy when down the road circumstances change such that wives may want to eventually be sealed to a different husband, a husband might want two more wives, or some other such thing.

My point is, since God is going to sort it all out after everyone gets to their various kingdoms, why bother with the all of the confusing sealings here on earth. Just have normal marriages and divorces with the idea that it will be sorted out, by god, in the Celestial Kingdom when you get there. Eliminates a lot of confusion, don't you think?

Mom

[JoCose]

You needed a third option: Polygamy is a false doctrine and won't be observed at all in the celestial kingdom.

Here are two quotes written by Joseph Smith himself. Looks like he changed his mind on the subject between writing the BoM and D&C

Jacob 2:24 â??Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

D&C 132:38 â??David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

[selek]

You needed a third option. Polygamy is a false doctrine and won't be observed at all in the celestial kingdom.

Here are two quotes written by Joseph Smith himself. Looks like he changed his mind on the subject between writing the BoM and D&C

Jacob 2:24 â??Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

D&C 132:38 â??David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

JoCose, you're missing an important element of context- note the phrase toward the end of the quote:"and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me."

David and Solomon were justified in their marriages up until they overstepped their authority from God. They began acquiring wives and concubines without God's authorization.

It's that critical factor that separates modern day polygamy from that of the 1800's and the late 2200's BC.

I also resent the implication that the apparent (and false) contradiction arises because Joseph Smith "changed his mind" sometime between writing the two texts. In actuality, Joseph was an inspired translator, not an author, and the contradiction is more apparent than real.

[why me]

You needed a third option: Polygamy is a false doctrine and won't be observed at all in the celestial kingdom.

Here are two quotes written by Joseph Smith himself. Looks like he changed his mind on the subject between writing the BoM and D&C

Jacob 2:24 â??Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

D&C 132:38 â??David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

Selek is correct. I would also like to add that it would be interesting just why JS would contradict himself if he was responsible for writing the book of mormon. JS was not an enthusiastic polygamous. And he gained nothing by it but heartache. He lost friends and eventually lost his life because of it, among other things. His marriage also suffered somewhat from it as related in the D&C. But he did what he had to do since the lord required it. Nothing gained by him in the practice except doing what god commanded him to do. And he complied. Notice the word concubines in the jacob quotation.

Do you know what a concubine is? In this case it could very well mean: kept mistress. And most likely it does mean just that. This is often overlooked by critics. Notice the 'and' would signify 'in addition to'.

[Nighthawke]

Do you know what a concubine is? In this case it could very well mean: kept mistress. And most likely it does mean just that. This is often overlooked by critics. Notice the 'and' would signify 'in addition to'.

A concubine is not a 'kept mistress.' Where did you get that idea?

[Oracle]

How did the idea of Polygamy get associated with the Celestial Kingdom anyway?

Because it is a numbers game. The more wives, the more increase. The more increase, the more glory.

[Zakuska]

Selek,

Not to mention the open door 2 verses later... Jacob 2:30

[why me]

A concubine is not a 'kept mistress.' Where did you get that idea?

Check your Oxford dictionary. It can mean a kept mistress or a second wife. And if one reads Jacob it does seem that wives and concubines are being separated since it would make no sense to put an 'and' and not a 'or' if they weren't a distinction.

[why me]

Selek,

Not to mention the open door 2 verses later... Jacob 2:30

Okay, what does this mean with my distinction between wives and concubines?

[Theophilus07]

As a non-LDS, you may disregard my following response. I seriously doubt that there is any afterlife so disagreement over polygamy in the highest degree of the LDS Celestial Kingdom strikes me as a moot point, though an interesting one in this forum. The teachings about the LDS Celestial Kingdom strike me as a reflection of the alpha male earthly aspirations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who were happiest running empires and enjoying multiple female affections appropriate to their alpha male stations. If that's what they liked when alive, we shouldn't be surprised if they envisioned a heaven which would mirror this. There is little question to me from their recorded words that both felt that in the afterlife there would only be two kinds of resurrected beings, (1) alpha males like them who were mighty, commanding chief executives of worlds with many doting goddess wives (none of them able to reach this pinnacle alone) waiting for them in their heavenly mansions and (2) these alpha males' unmarried eunich slaves.

Not surprising (to me), when Church leadership moved from these driving virile alpha males to very elderly men, the vision of heaven changed to reflect these surviving gerontological gentlemens' different earthly aspirations. My guess (and that's all it is) would be that if the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve had more men in their thirties, there'd be more insistance on plural wives in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

The comments so far in this thread appear to me to reflect the varying LDS reactions to this transitional dichotomy and to reflect the aspirations of contemporary LDS. Few LDS women I've met warm to sharing their husbands, though some in this thread see the spousal necessities of some surviving widowers (but, interestingly, not widows). Most LDS men I know -- particularly those who are not alpha males -- see heaven as more of a richly enchanced retirement than a call to eternal empire building and reproduction.

Theophilus07

JS was not an enthusiastic polygamous. And he gained nothing by it but heartache. He lost friends and eventually lost his life because of it, among other things. His marriage also suffered somewhat from it as related in the D&C. But he did what he had to do since the lord required it. Nothing gained by him in the practice except doing what god commanded him to do. And he complied.

This strikes me as more of a personal opinion and hope than a position defendable with documentation. Do you have such documentation to Pres. Smith's inner feelings?

I personally don't know Pres. Smith's inner feelings, but the frequency with which he took plural wives, and the fact that he repeatedly deliberately hid these from Emma and endured emotional confrontation with her over them when she discovered them suggests at least the possibility that he may not have been entirely opposed to polygamy.

Theophilus07

[Ron Beron]

Not surprising (to me), when Church leadership moved from these driving virile alpha males to very elderly men, the vision of heaven changed to reflect these surviving gerontological gentlemens' different earthly aspirations. My guess (and that's all it is) would be that if the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve had more men in their thirties, there'd be more insistance on plural wives in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

It seems to me that you are ascribing the motives of these brethren to a perceived licentiousness rather than a outward sign of obedience. The rules regarding polygamy in the early church were highly restrictive. Not any man who wanted to entertain multiple wives could so engage. It required a special calling to do so. Additionally, assuming that modern church officials opinion on polygamy would be any different if there were younger men is highly cynical and certainly prejudicial. I fall within the framework of of those who would be the most inclined towards polygamy had I lived in the 1850's. However, I have never entertained the thought of plural wives nor would I even think of within the framework of prurient interest.

[kamenraider]

Bishop Abraham Hunsaker had an experience regarding this topic that

was included in the Latter-Day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia:

"When the law of celestial marriage was first whispered to him,

he opposed it, exclaiming, 'It is of the devil,' but God knew his

heart and in open day a messenger from heaven with three women

[wives] clothed in white raiment stood before him several feet

from the ground and addressed him thus, 'You never can receive a

full and complete salvation in my kingdom unless your garments

are pure and white, and you have three counselors like me.' Thus

he was convinced that the principle was right and he subsequently

married five wives and he became the father of fifty children."

--Andrew Jenson (Assistant Church Historian), Latter-Day Saint

Biographical Encyclopedia, [salt Lake City, Utah: Andrew Jenson

Memorial Foundation, 1936], Vol. 3 p. 415

[Theophilus07]

It seems to me that you are ascribing the motives of these brethren to a perceived licentiousness rather than a outward sign of obedience.

It is entirely possible that you missed my first sentence in which I pointed out my non-LDS status and invited believers to disregard my non-LDS opinions at their option. Going forward, Enemy Ace, don't hesitate to do what you need to avoid my non-LDS opinions.

I'm sure that in the general American population there is a wide spectrum of opinion from those like you who believe LDS polygamists only reluctantly took plural wives strictly to be obedient (and thus only reluctantly had intimacy with them) to a middle group like me which suspects that both obedience and a warm spot in their hearts for female companionship motivated the taking of plural wives (on average 19 years old regardless of the age of the male, according to research published by pro-LDS authors), and those on the far extreme who believe that licentiousness was the only motive. Surviving comments from the early participant polygamists convinces me that some pioneer LDS men genuinely did not want to take additional wives and did so at least partly to be obedient.

Other published accounts of polygamist behavior suggests to me that you may be mistaken if you believe that 100% of the LDS participants had no licentiousness whatsoever.

Additionally, assuming that modern church officials opinion on polygamy would be any different if there were younger men is highly cynical and certainly prejudicial.

Very possibly, at least from an LDS perspective. But mine is not an LDS perspective.

I fall within the framework of of those who would be the most inclined towards polygamy had I lived in the 1850's. However, I have never entertained the thought of plural wives nor would I even think of within the framework of prurient interest.

I'm glad to take at face value your description of your own higher personal spirituality and commend and congratulate you for it.

Theophilus07

[selek]

The teachings about the LDS Celestial Kingdom strike me as a reflection of the alpha male earthly aspirations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young who were happiest running empires and enjoying multiple female affections appropriate to their alpha male stations. If that's what they liked when alive, we shouldn't be surprised if they envisioned a heaven which would mirror this. There is little question to me from their recorded words that both felt that in the afterlife there would only be two kinds of resurrected beings, (1) alpha males like them who were mighty, commanding chief executives of worlds with many doting goddess wives (none of them able to reach this pinnacle alone) waiting for them in their heavenly mansions and (2) these alpha males' unmarried eunich slaves.

Interesting, Theo...you are making unsubstantiated guesses about the driving motives of the early LDS leaders, yet you chide Why Me below for doing the same thing.

Not surprising (to me), when Church leadership moved from these driving virile alpha males to very elderly men, the vision of heaven changed to reflect these surviving gerontological gentlemens' different earthly aspirations. My guess (and that's all it is) would be that if the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve had more men in their thirties, there'd be more insistance on plural wives in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

Again, this is wholly unsubstantiated- nothing more than your opinion. Why do you snip at another poster for offering her opinion, when by your own admission, that's all you are doing yourself?

The comments so far in this thread appear to me to reflect the varying LDS reactions to this transitional dichotomy and to reflect the aspirations of contemporary LDS. Few LDS women I've met warm to sharing their husbands, though some in this thread see the spousal necessities of some surviving widowers (but, interestingly, not widows). Most LDS men I know -- particularly those who are not alpha males -- see heaven as more of a richly enchanced retirement than a call to eternal empire building and reproduction.

While waving the white flag of "it's only my opinion", you also state something that is very likely inflammatory and wholly without documentation. It's entirely anecdotal, yet you seek to paint the entire LDS priesthood with that brush.

I personally don't know Pres. Smith's inner feelings, but the frequency with which he took plural wives, and the fact that he repeatedly deliberately hid these from Emma and endured emotional confrontation with her over them when she discovered them suggests at least the possibility that he may not have been entirely opposed to polygamy.

Theophilus07

This position seems to avoid a considerable amount of contrary evidence, as well as the point of Why Me's post- that Joseph was not enthusiastically polygamous, but only engaged in the practice because he was commanded to do so. Her point very neatly covers all of the available evidence, and points towards a reluctant Prophet and an understandably angry wife and their later reconciliation.

I also find your "I'm not LDS so feel free to ignore my opinion" flags to be somewhat disingenuous and bemusing. IF what you have to say is of no worth, and you don't want it to be considered, why bother posting at all?

[Nighthawke]

But mine is not an LDS perspective.

For those who are interested in an LDS perspective, the following is one of many, many that I transcribed recently:

Did not our parents come from the very heart of civilization but a very few years ago? And are they not among the noblest and most intelligent of the world? And did not this order of marriage shock and astonish them quite as much as the Christian world now profess to be shocked? Certainly, and it came in contact with their tradition, education, and every selfish feeling of their natures. And more, they were compelled to endure the scorn of the world, and of their nearest and dearest friends. But did they institute it? Did they seek it? Did they desire it? No, of course not. Common sense will answer that question. God, our Creator, positively commanded it; and what could they do? The trial was so great that many would have preferred death, and would no doubt never have received it had not God in His mercy shown it to them individually by His power, for He knew the honesty of their hearts in doubting, and had respect unto their integrity. A great many felt like this: We know it was practiced by the ancient saints; but, oh! do not require this sacrifice of us. But God strengthened them, and made them understand His glorious purpose in establishing it; how He could by this holy order people the world with a righteous seed and purify and improve the present state of mankind; and how, through this channel, those waiting in the spirit land might be brought forth, and population need not decrease as the world would have it, but increase on a grand scale through virtuous and God-fearing parents; for none but the highly-intelligent and noble-minded can make a success of plural marriage.

- Charity. "A Few More Facts" in the Womanâ??s Exponent. (Salt Lake City: 1 August 1882), p. 35.

[Olavarria]

Lets focus on getting to the CK; once you get there then all these things will be answered.

[Theophilus07]

Interesting, Theo...you are making unsubstantiated guesses about the driving motives of the early LDS leaders, yet you chide Why Me below for doing the same thing.

Again, this is wholly unsubstantiated- nothing more than your opinion. Why do you snip at another poster for offering her opinion, when by your own admission, that's all you are doing yourself?

There was no reason to feel I was "snipping" at Why Me just because I expressed an opposing opinion. I merely suggested that she had expressed an opinion rather than a statement of fact and asked her if she had any documentation for her opinion. I was hoping for some quotation from JS, or something along those lines. When I suggested that JS may not have been as reluctant a polygamist as she interpreted, I gave three demonstrable and heavily documented examples of his behavior as support from which my conclusion had been drawn and could be drawn by others, in fact, IS drawn by others. Your claim that my opinion was "wholly unsubstantiated" is contradicted by my three behavioral examples given.

There may be a reasonable question about the wisdom of ascribing only angry, evil motives to people who disagree with you, selek, or with Why Me. In my experience, many people routinely encounter opposing viewpoints with equanimity. Many of them even enjoy considering those opposing viewpoints and engaging in dialog with the people expressing them. Instead of taking offense where none was intended, you might wish to try listening to people with opposing viewpoints and consider what they say.

And, incidentally, I'm not here to proselytize since I represent no church.

While waving the white flag of "it's only my opinion", you also state something that is very likely inflammatory and wholly without documentation. It's entirely anecdotal, yet you seek to paint the entire LDS priesthood with that brush.

Seriously, selek, I'm having more than a little difficulty understanding this and I've read it over several times. I wish to avoid violation of any LDS taboo I didn't know about, so I ask you to clarify something for me to help me understand your unexpected reaction. Please believe me when I say I mean no offense when I respectfully ask [and I've double checked the wording several times to make sure I'm being clear],

is it official (or at least widely held) LDS church doctrine that 100% of LDS polygamists lacked a normal male sex drive and engaged in intimacy with their plural wives ONLY reluctantly and out of a desire to be obedient?

Or was it just JS who lacked a normal sex drive?

Please note that I have taken great pains to use ordinary vocabulary without any judgmental phrasing or any hint of disrespect (I even used some wording I found in other TBM LDS posts). If the answer to either of my questions about LDS doctrine is yes, could you please provide documentation? After I read your response to my post, which caught me off guard, I googled about this, and checked through various official LDS websites, but I really couldn't find ANYTHING about it. I knew I hadn't read everything about Mormonism, but this point never came up in any of my readings. In any event, I look forward to your clarification.

Theophilus07

[kamenraider]

Lets focus on getting to the CK; once you get there then all these things will be answered.

What if polygamy is one of the things we might have to live to get there (the highest degree that is), though?

Wilford Woodruff, his counselors, and Quorum of the Twelve had this to say in their amnesty petition to the U.S. president on December 19, 1891:

"We formerly [i.e. prior to OD 1] taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come."

--Messages of the First Presidency Vol. 3, Bookcraft, SLC 1966, pg. 230

An example of Wilford Woodruff teaching this is the following excerpt from a letter from him to Samuel A. Woolley:

"You ask some other questions concerning how many living wives a man must have to fulfil the law.

When a man, according to the revelation, marries a wife under the holy order which God has revealed and then marries another in the same way, he enters into the new and everlasting covenant, and so far as he has gone he has obeyed the law."

--Letter to Bishop S. A. Woolley (9th Ward, SLC) May 22, 1888, First Presidency letterpress copybooks, 1877-1949, Vol. 18: 841-843

This requirement hasn't been revoked, but rather suspended for a time (by OD 1):

"Thus saith the Lord all commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant; For I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand forever.

...

I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen."

--Revelation to President John Taylor at Centerville, UT on September 27, 1886, Unpublished Revelations Vol. 1, Collier's Pub. Co., SLC 1979, pgs. 145-146 (see image of original in John Taylor's handwriting below)

When "that day" comes when "seven women shall take hold of one man", etc. (Isaiah 4:1) we'll all have to consider whether exaltation is worth living this law.

[thesometimesaint]

kamenraider:

Is it your contention that Wilford Woodruff, his counselors, and Quorum of the Twelve are saying that some 95%-97% of the population of the Church(at that time) would not even be eligible for the CK simply because they were never asked to participate in polygamy?