Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Polygamy as a woman


Del March

Recommended Posts

QUOTE

When you say "love is not possession or exclusivity" you forget something.

Of course love is not possession or exclusivity but I would say that it has something to do with it. For example when you get a baby you love it very much and this deep connection is "exclusive" between you and the baby. And this baby "belongs" to you and your husband because it's a gift from God.

You wouldn't want to give your baby away or to share it with another woman.

It's interesting that you say that a baby belongs to us because it's a gift from God. Did you get sealed in the Temple ? Then you must remember the one little difference between what the husband promises and what the wife promises ? It precisely has to do with giving.

No, I'm not married yet. So if possible please tell me the difference between what the husband promises and what the wife promises (if it's okay to talk about it here, if not then don't).

QUOTE

But please do not expect that other women can feel the same way. And please understand that polygamy won't be the best way for all women.

Well, polygamy in the Church now is out of the question anyway, so women don't have to worry about it. And if God ever decides to ask them to get into it later (much later, in the Millenium or even after), He will prepare them, He will teach them, and He will make sure that their happiness remains their husband's priority.

For me polygamy is an important question NOW although we luckily don't have to live it right now. It is so important for me because when I was younger and didn't know about polygamy I had a certain picture of God: he loves me, he cares for me, he protects me AND all what he does his only for our best.

But with polygamy I can't understand him because when I try to imagine to live that way I get sick and really feel terrible. Maybe I won't have to live that way here on earth but in eternity? Hopefully not... will I have to? Usually I would say no (free agency) but then I think of Emma Smith and I don't know anymore what to think.

And another question came to my mind: Is it important for God that before a couple gets married that they have fallen in love with each other and have a deep love for each other (not only friendship)? Or is it only important for us?

For in a plural marriage like the one of Brigham Young I can't really imagine that he has fallen in love with all of them... And I also can't imagine that all those marriage ceremonies were happy (without love)...

Link to comment
Good thing the LDS church came around to warn them about drinking hot, caffinated drinks like Swiss Miss.

I suspect some irony here, but I can't pinpoint it. It might have to do with the fact that I have no idea what Swiss Miss is.

I think eating a "balanced diet" has been recommended for a very long time. 

Maybe you were lucky to have such concepts in America 150 years ago. We didn't even have them in France when I was a kid. Keep in mind that God did not write the WoW just for the pioneers.

You're getting into major suppositions.  I could say "what if women's sex drives go throught the roof in the next life and could NEVER be satisfied with one partner - that is why God will have polyandry".

Why even go there?  The question is - knowing what we know now, why would God want polygamy and not polyandry.  I can't find anything that isn't subjective to the LDS faith itself.

Of course I'm going into suppositions, when people ask me questions about things that God has not revealed, and then conclude that if He didn't mention them, that's because they are not good !

Why would God want or not want polygamy and not polyandry ? The only answer is we don't know because God didn't reveal anything about that. So we cannot suppose that polyandry is right, nor can we suppose that it is wrong. Both conclusions are only suppositions.

Men not being able to bear children would still be relevant in the context of eternal gods giving birth to their own spirit children.

If you believe it happens physically.  Why would you?

Why not ? Once again, we don't know. Hence affirming that physical bodies are not necessary for giving birth to spirit children is just as silly as saying that spirit children can only be born through physical bodies. We don't know, so let's not suppose one way or the other, OK ?

But there's not a single thing I would ever tell my wife that begins with "Yes...you COULD do this....but you're not allowed because you're a girl."  My heart tells me neither would God.

UH ??? What about "you would be a terrific bishop (stake president, church president), but you're not allowed because you're a girl ?" God DOES restrict what women are allowed to do, no matter how qualified they would be, holding the Priesthood being the biggest example of that. Unless you believe that women cannot inherently hold the Priesthood because they are women ?

Until then it's all conjecture.

EXACTLY !! And saying that God is against something because He hasn't specifically said He is for it, is conjecture too.

Del

Link to comment

UH ??? What about "you would be a terrific bishop (stake president, church president), but you're not allowed because you're a girl ?" God DOES restrict what women are allowed to do, no matter how qualified they would be, holding the Priesthood being the biggest example of that. Unless you believe that women cannot inherently hold the Priesthood because they are women ?

The rest is round and round - but I'll take this one. I don't see God doing it in that case either. Why would he?

Again, would God ever tell his daughter "Yes, you could...but your not allowed because you're a girl"? I don't believe so. Mormons do. In several cases, as you point out.

"Sorry - you haven't got a womb" is one thing. "Sorry...you...um...just can't" is another. I don't buy it. Only your belief sustains this. In ANY other part of life you would reject such logic all together.

Let's find an example that mirrors the priesthood. Let's use a basic definition that the priesthood is the authority and power to act in God's name. So how about policemen. They have the authority and power to act in our government's name - right? So, what if we passed a new rule saying "women cannot be policemen"? That's OK? Ignoring whether you have any interest in being one - do you think it's right to say a woman cannot be something only because she is a woman? We could list hundreds of rights and privilages that women take for granted where they would be extremely upset should they be taken away. Voting? Citizenship?

I just can't imagine God would ever allow men certain rights and women others. Everything I believe about God rejects that utterly. Outside of the LDS church this feeling is becoming universal. Most churches have women ministers now. Those that don't are rapidly heading that way. Why? Because they're sinning and rejecting God's true principals? Call it what you will. I believe it's because inside of us we believe men and women are entitled to the same rights. We believe God is just. We believe he gives to all equally. That is...unless one needs to believe otherwise in order to justify other beliefs.

Link to comment
No, I'm not married yet. So if possible please tell me the difference between what the husband promises and what the wife promises (if it's okay to talk about it here, if not then don't).

Aww, sorry ! It's nothing mind-blowing, but like with everything else pertaining to the Temple ceremonies. I'm afraid I can't tell you. I'm sorry. But don't worry, the wife doesn't promise to become her husband's slave :P

For me polygamy is an important question NOW although we luckily don't have to live it right now. It is so important for me because when I was younger and didn't know about polygamy I had a certain picture of God: he loves me, he cares for me, he protects me AND all what he does his only for our best.

But with polygamy I can't understand him because when I try to imagine to live that way I get sick and really feel terrible. Maybe I won't have to live that way here on earth but in eternity? Hopefully not... will I have to? Usually I would say no (free agency) but then I think of Emma Smith and I don't know anymore what to think.

Don't torture yourself with those things ! Before I was married, I felt just like you. Polygamy seemed like the most horrendous thing imaginable. I just couldn't reconcile the concept of polygamy and the concept of a God that loves each of us individually and infinitely.

When I was dating my husband, we went to the Temple and met with one of his friends. During a discussion, they mentioned that Heavenly Father probably has several wives and that my husband will probably have several wives too in the eternity (I'm still not sure whether this is real doctrine or not). I felt HORRIBLE. I became very upset and angry and I left the discussion right away.

Then we got married, and there was NO WAY I could imagine him making love to another woman !!

But each time I became upset with those questions, I just forced myself to relax and ignore them. I know by experience that often we are not ready for the answers we seek, and that those answers will come later, when we're ready for them.

That's what happened with polygamy. I left the matter alone, trusting God that one day I would either understand it or He would reveal it isn't a Celestial principle.

Well, I still don't know if it is a celestial principle and if He has several wives, but I did come to understand it, all of a sudden.

So relax about it, and don't try and force yourself to believe it. You don't *have* to believe it. As you said, you are not and won't be required to live it in this life. So don't bother about it. Understanding will come someday, whether in this life or in the next. In the meantime, don't let this keep you away from the love of God.

And another question came to my mind: Is it important for God that before a couple gets married that they have fallen in love with each other and have a deep love for each other (not only friendship)? Or is it only important for us?

I don't think there's any doctrine about this, I can only give you my opinion.

I think the question is not so much does God prefer when people are in love when they get married, but rather is it better ? There are advantages and inconvenients to it. Do the advantages outweigh the inconvenients ? I personally believe so, as long as some caution is used.

First of all, marriage is one of the best places to learn Christ-like love, so it makes sense that people should already love each other when they get married.

Moreover, the first year of marriage is often quite hard, and it's much easier when the spouses are very much in love.

However, there are examples in the Scriptures of people getting married without being in love. Isaac didn't choose his wife. Jacob ended up marrying first the sister of the woman he loved. In both cases, God was apparently satisfied with the marriages.

Moreover, there are dangers when two people are passionately in love when they get married. First because it might prevent them from seeing that the spouse they chose is not what they wanted. And second because passion rarely lasts. There *has* to be something else behind it (friendship, respect, etc...), and sometimes those other things aren't there, so when passion ends, the marriage is in trouble.

And after all, passion-love is not the only kind of love there is. Christ-like love might be more generic, but it's just as strong, if not stronger.

So is it better to be in love when getting married ? I think so, as long as one makes sure that this love doesn't lead them to choose someone they wouldn't choose if they weren't in love.

In other words, I think love is a plus, but it shouldn't be the *reason* we marry someone. Since you're not married yet, you probably think I'm crazy <_< , but believe me : if the only reason you marry someone is because you love him, you're putting yourself in a dangerous situation. I personally had a list (very short, 3 items, but strong ones) of things I was looking for in my husband, and if he hadn't had them, I would not have started dating him, no matter how attracted I was to him.

However, this is only my own opinion, based on my understanding of the prophets' counsel to young people, definitely NOT doctrine.

For in a plural marriage like the one of Brigham Young I can't really imagine that he has fallen in love with all of them... And I also can't imagine that all those marriage ceremonies were happy (without love)...

Well, as I said earlier, there are different kinds of love. I doubt Brigham Young was passionately in love with all his wives, or that all of them loved him passionately. But I do hope there was some kind of love between them : charity, brotherly love, friendship, things like that. Of course it seems a bit thin to build a marriage on, but it mostly depends on what a woman expects from a marriage. If she expects life-long romance, of course there's no way she'll content herself with brotherly love. But if she "only" wants a chance at maternity, or if she's "only" looking for the blessings of sealing, or if she's looking for a chance to escape the duress of celibacy (much harder in those times than ours), and if she somehow feels that she might not find "better" according to her criteria (for example, Brigham Young was a wonderful man of God, most other men probably paled in comparison to him on this point, so if a woman was looking for that, she might see it as a plus), then I guess she might be happy marrying someone she doesn't love "that way".

Basing marriage on passion is quite a modern thing. When you do genealogy and you see people marrying someone from their own village or the villages around, generation after generation, you can't help but feel that all those marriages couldn't have been based on passion. Quite often, it must have been a matter of who was best suited for who, who would made an acceptable companion for who, which was facilitated by the fact that those people had been around each other for years. We are lucky that we can add the passion element to our choice, but we shouldn't make it the dominant, or worse the only, criterion in our choice of an eternal companion.

I hope I didn't sound too preachy to you ?

Del

Link to comment
Again, would God ever tell his daughter "Yes, you could...but your not allowed because you're a girl"?  I don't believe so.  Mormons do.  In several cases, as you point out.

Oh ! OK :P I thought you were talking from an LDS point of view. Sorry.

So, what if we passed a new rule saying "women cannot be policemen"?  That's OK?  Ignoring whether you have any interest in being one - do you think it's right to say a woman cannot be something only because she is a woman?

God is allowed to do as He wishes with us, but we are not allowed to do as we wish with each other. There are things I accept from God that I wouldn't accept from anyone else. And this is such a case.

Outside of the LDS church this feeling is becoming universal. Most churches have women ministers now. Those that don't are rapidly heading that way. Why? Because they're sinning and rejecting God's true principals?

Well... We *are* warned that in the last days, men would call good evil, and evil good. And as a LDS, I do believe we are in the last days, so...

I believe it's because inside of us we believe men and women are entitled to the same rights.  We believe God is just.  We believe he gives to all equally. 

Except that He doesn't. As you pointed out, men don't have wombs, and never will. To you it might sound like a minor difference, but to LDS who understand the doctrine, it is THE major difference. Priesthood is given to men only, because women have maternity. I guess you don't understand that, but I do. If women had the Priesthood, what would be left to men as their special gift ?

Del

Link to comment
The problem with Polygamy is that CHILDREN are indoctrinated into the practice at an early age, before they can or are able to consciously choose whether it is a lifelong practice they wish to participate in or not.

Because SEX and minors are involved, only ugly outcomes will be the fruits of polygamy.

Link to comment

Except that He doesn't. As you pointed out, men don't have wombs, and never will. To you it might sound like a minor difference, but to LDS who understand the doctrine, it is THE major difference. Priesthood is given to men only, because women have maternity. I guess you don't understand that, but I do. If women had the Priesthood, what would be left to men as their special gift ?

I certainly hope that I am not going to spend the eternities in gestation. :P If the Lord created Adam and Eve it seems to me that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I'm banking on that. And if I could get in one more metaphor I would.

Priesthood is not just given to men...women serve in the temple so I don't see how that relates to maternity.

Link to comment
I certainly hope that I am not going to spend the eternities in gestation.  :P

Even though I mentioned wombs before, maternity has to do with a lot more than just getting pregnant and giving birth to kids.

Priesthood is not just given to men...women serve in the temple so I don't see how that relates to maternity.

Yup. In the *temples* only. And even there we can use it only under the Temple presidency's authority (for example, it's not a woman who ordains a woman).

I believe that the restriction on Priesthood for women has to do *only* with this life on Earth. In the Celestial Kingdom, I'm pretty sure that women hold the Priesthood just like men, maybe still under men's presidency.

Inversely, that would mean that in the CK, men can share in maternity somehow.

But in normal life on Earth, men and women are equal, different, and with different specific gifts : men have the Priesthood, women have maternity.

Del

Link to comment

To: Del March

Thank you for all your honest answers.

I think they have helped me a little bit to understand.

Of course they haven't scatter all my feelings towards that topic but I have to admit that they pacified me mildly.

Thank you for all your effort.

Link to comment
To: Del March

Thank you for all your honest answers.

I think they have helped me a little bit to understand.

Of course they haven't scatter all my feelings towards that topic but I have to admit that they pacified me mildly.

Thank you for all your effort.

You're welcome :P

I never hoped to convince you and pacifiy you : only God can do that. I was just trying to give you new insights into the question, that's all. I'm glad it made you feel a tad bit better.

Del

Link to comment

I believe that the restriction on Priesthood for women has to do *only* with this life on Earth. In the Celestial Kingdom, I'm pretty sure that women hold the Priesthood just like men, maybe still under men's presidency.

Inversely, that would mean that in the CK, men can share in maternity somehow.

But in normal life on Earth, men and women are equal, different, and with different specific gifts : men have the Priesthood, women have maternity.

I certainly agree with the latter. I'm still going to nitpick about the eternities, however. I think that if we truly believe that woman and man are "one" there is no "under the man" in anything. Heavenly Mother is beside the Father in all things.

Link to comment
I'm still going to nitpick about the eternities, however.  I think that if we truly believe that woman and man are "one" there is no "under the man" in anything.  Heavenly Mother is beside the Father in all things.

I agree. And yet we don't pray to our Heavenly Mother (who I believe has got as much power to answer as Heavenly Father does). In fact, as far as our life on Earth is concerned, Heavenly Mother is completely invisible, she could not exist that it wouldn't change anything (apparently, at least). This to me indicates that even in the eternities, men and women don't have the same roles. But just like on Earth, one isn't more important than the other : our Heavenly parents are different but equal. And honestly, I don't believe either that Heavenly Mother is under her husband's authority. I do believe that men presiding over their wives is only for this mortal condition (one of the "curses" put on Eve for having transgressed first), and that once out of that world, men and women share the presidency equally.

Del

Link to comment

I agree with Juliann on this one.

Priesthood is ultimately under God. At the moment, due to the limitations of mortality, lines of authority and 'protocol,' for want of a better word, are necessary.

If we are to be one with Christ, then our priesthood will most like be directly under him, from him for both man and woman.

It was the Fall that placed the man as the presider. Once the effects of the Fall are removed, that presiding office no longer needs to exist.

add-on: looks like I agree with Del on this as well

Link to comment
This to me indicates that even in the eternities, men and women don't have the same roles. But just like on Earth, one isn't more important than the other : our Heavenly parents are different but equal.

This reminds me of something a good friend was told in a blessing once. She was seriously bent out of shape over the women and priesthood issue (eventually left the Church actually). However, before she did, she was told in a blessing that when she found out about the role of women in the eternities, she'd be jumping for joy that she was a woman. Since that's never happened in this life, and knowing her personality, I can't imagine that being subordinate to anyone (except Heavenly Father and Christ) is part of being a Celestial Woman.

Eventually she decided she couldn't wait for that, but I'm with those who say we see/understand the eternities 'darkly'. I think we'll all be blown away when we get there - and some of us will feel pretty sheepish about what we thought it would be like.

I really enjoy the raising of children (most days) but I agree with Juliann that I don't really want to spend eternity in gestation - unless the morning sickness is absent, then maybe it won't be so bad.

Jane

Link to comment
I really enjoy the raising of children (most days) but I agree with Juliann that I don't really want to spend eternity in gestation - unless the morning sickness is absent, then maybe it won't be so bad.

Well, I don't think we'll be pregnant all the time. But just for the sake of the argument, imagine this : the most wondertul pregnancy you coud have. No morning sickness. No fatigue. No aching back. No cramps. No heart burns. No weird things happening to your hair, skin and whatever. No feeling as heavy as a whale, or looking like it either. No heavy legs. And so on. Imagine a pregnancy where your hormones make you feel happy all the time. Where you feel like a queen. Where your man looks at you like you're a cross between a top model, a diamond and a goddess. Where you manage to establish a relationship with your unborn baby very early and easily. Where the sheer sight of beauty or children makes you feel exhilarated. And so on. The most perfect pregnancy you can imagine.

OK, got it ?

Now make it better by a million times.

This is not doctrine of course. Maybe we won't even get pregnant there the same way we do here. But maybe, just maybe, I got the gist of it. And if I did, then I sure don't want to miss out on that !!

Oh, and thanks for sharing about your friend's blessing. I loved it :P ! Too bad she didn't manage to find enough patience to wait <_<

Del

Link to comment

Del said: Except that He doesn't. As you pointed out, men don't have wombs, and never will. To you it might sound like a minor difference, but to LDS who understand the doctrine, it is THE major difference. Priesthood is given to men only, because women have maternity. I guess you don't understand that, but I do. If women had the Priesthood, what would be left to men as their special gift ?

This is something I have thought about quite a bit. Men have sperm. They are the other half of the equation. Without men, women would not bear children, whether they have a womb or not. I know I'm being a bit of "buttinsky" here, and late in the game at that, but I really don't follow this logic.

:P

Link to comment
This is something I have thought about quite a bit. Men have sperm. They are the other half of the equation. Without men, women would not bear children, whether they have a womb or not. I know I'm being a bit of "buttinsky" here, and late in the game at that, but I really don't follow this logic.

I agree that without men, women would never get pregnant. But see it that way : once an embryo has been formed, which parent does it need ? The father can die right after inseminating the mother without it having any direct repercussions on the embryo. But if the mother dies, the embryo dies too. During 9 months, the only parent a baby needs, the only parent that will have any importance for it, is his mother. There's an exclusive relationship with only one parent, that will never be found again in life. There's no counterpart for men : there's no time in their kid's life when their father will be the only parent the kid needs. We women have a total exclusivity that you men will never share (in this life on Earth, anyway).

Del

Link to comment
Consenting adults should be allowed any consensual lifestyle they choose as long their choices do not infringe upon the rights of others.

The problem with Polygamy is that CHILDREN are indoctrinated into the practice at an early age, before they can or are able to consciously choose whether it is a lifelong practice they wish to participate in or not.

Because SEX and minors are involved, only ugly outcomes will be the fruits of polygamy. Just look South of Salt Lake to the border, to see what polygamy creates.

...to see what polygamy creates when an unrighteous leader is at the head of the organization/commune preaching "his" version of polygamy. I believe it is a gross mistake to equate today's FLDS practice of polygamy with the early LDS principle of plural marriage.

Link to comment
This is something I have thought about quite a bit. Men have sperm. They are the other half of the equation. Without men, women would not bear children, whether they have a womb or not. I know I'm being a bit of "buttinsky" here, and late in the game at that, but I really don't follow this logic.

I agree that without men, women would never get pregnant. But see it that way : once an embryo has been formed, which parent does it need ? The father can die right after inseminating the mother without it having any direct repercussions on the embryo. But if the mother dies, the embryo dies too. During 9 months, the only parent a baby needs, the only parent that will have any importance for it, is his mother. There's an exclusive relationship with only one parent, that will never be found again in life. There's no counterpart for men : there's no time in their kid's life when their father will be the only parent the kid needs. We women have a total exclusivity that you men will never share (in this life on Earth, anyway).

Del

Yes, but all worthy men can have the priesthood. You do not have to be "worthy" to have children.

Not all "worthy" women are able to carry and bear children.

This is why I agree with the sentiments from another poster who said something along the lines of "You can't honey, you're a girl..."

Regardless of the type of bond between a woman and a child, regardless that the woman is the "only" parent needed for 9 months, etc, etc, she would not be needed without the seed, whether the father died right after or not.

Link to comment
Yes, but all worthy men can have the priesthood. You do not have to be "worthy" to have children.

Not all "worthy" women are able to carry and bear children.

So ? This only means that God freely chooses who He will bless with Priesthood and maternity. He chose that only men who obeyed to certain rules would have the Priesthood, and He chose for reasons unknown that some women would not have children.

This is why I agree with the sentiments from another poster who said something along the lines of "You can't honey, you're a girl..."

Except that women DO hold the Priesthood in certain circumstances.

Regardless of the type of bond between a woman and a child, regardless that the woman is the "only" parent needed for 9 months, etc, etc, she would not be needed without the seed, whether the father died right after or not.

And without a woman, the seed would be useless, so I fail to see your point.

Del

Link to comment
And without a woman, the seed would be useless, so I fail to see your point.

It wasn't my point. It was yours.

Thank you for trying to answer me. After seven pages, I imagine you are tired of going around and around with people. We will have to agree to disagree on this one, particularly because it is irrelevent. For several reasons I'm afraid.

Link to comment
And without a woman, the seed would be useless, so I fail to see your point.

It wasn't my point. It was yours.

Oh, right :P Well, actually, my point was that woman is not just half the seed : she's also the pot in which the seed grows. Man is "only" half the seed.

We could see it that way : four things are necessary to have a baby.

1. A seed from a man

2. A seed from a woman

3. A womb to grow the seed

4. God's blessing

Man brings only 1/4 of the necessary ingredients, while woman brings half of them.

Thank you for trying to answer me. After seven pages, I imagine you are tired of going around and around with people. We will have to agree to disagree on this one, particularly because it is irrelevent. For several reasons I'm afraid.

Actually, we haven't really been around on that particular matter. But of course we can agree to disagree, no problem.

Just wondering : why do you think this matter is irrelevant ?

Del

Link to comment

Del,

While I find you to be respectful, and willing to look at things with an open mind, the same cannot be said for many of the posters here. The "YAWN, and Boring's and the sharp "wit" and rudeness, do not offer up a place for someone like me to really ask and discuss.

I'm seeking for truth. I'm seeking to know if the church is true, or for that matter if it has *any* truth. I spent some time at RFM and found it to be harsh and critical, and someone directed me here. However, I have found that it isn't much better here often times, and perhaps it's only a bit tamer because you are not annyomous here, as much as people would like to disagree.

I find that in my quest, there is no place safe to ask questions without getting slammed by one side or the other.( Each of course claiming to be right, both often becomming arrogant and snide)

I have many things I would like to talk about, women being denied the Priesthood is one of them, but the threads become derailed, and people are not very nice, and the intent of the post is lost a large majority of the time. The other problem I run into, is I'm either offered the "anti" message, or the FARMS and Fair messages, all of which are biased, and equal in my eyes. It is simply shades of gray, there is no black and white as both sides would have me believe.

So therein lies the irrelevance. If I bring it to the table here, my initial question becomes irrelevant and lost, just as if I bring it to RFM. When you are lost, both sides consider you weak. It presents terrible conundrum.

I've turned my heart over to God. I have asked for help and guidance and I am receiving my answers. I am finding my way. I will of course learn the truth in that way. Perhaps I already have.

At any rate, I enjoyed reading this thread, and I always like to see things from a new perspective, no matter if I agree or not. It is refreshing to see that while you might not fully understand, you have faith. Whatever your faith is in, I can respect that, as it is deeply personal.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...