How To Teach Your Children The Heritage And Doctrine Of Polygamy

[juliann]

Also, as explained by Hudson in regards to why currently a deceased woman can only be sealed to one man, but a woman who is alive cannot, "we have good reason, however, to believe that constraint will be removed by the Lord in the near future". Based on my understanding of sealings, Church history and Section 132, I would agree with Hudson that this constraint will be removed shortly.

I think you meant a deceased woman can be sealed to all of her husbands but a living woman can only be sealed to one...? I am shocked to see that some still insist on ignoring the very real fact that women also have multiple sealings, and that their feelings for their husbands are every bit as strong as a man's feelings for his wives. Thus, I find the rationale that dissolving a man's marriage to mulitiple women is unimaginable while women are expected to dissolve them as routine quite disturbing if there is to be any pretense that women are as valued as men.

As you mention, sealings have changed. Also, we simply assume that no one is going to be forced into a sealing. We take divorces quite matter of factly or even the idea that an unbearable situation on earth won't be forced onto anyone in heaven. Unless it is a polygamous marriage! Too often, I see an irrational insistence that nothing can be changed. Of course it can! Where does the idea come from that a certain subset of people will not have the privilege of agency?

Hudson has solved a lot of issues with her analysis. I don't know if her FAIR talk is up but she even gave statistics on the percentage of extra women required if a man was to have 2 wives. Or 3 wives. When you see the stats the absurdity of trying to take an exception to a rule and insert it into eternity becomes obvious. There is only one reason for polygamy in heaven and that is that there will be wildly disproportionate numbers of men and women. Whatever reasons a polygamy adocate may read into the gospel are irrelevant because without excess women it won't happen. So before one tries to take on more women, he has to create a theology that is based on numbers.

All a polygamy advocate has to do is come up with anything at all from a modern prophet saying that polygamy is a celestial principal. They never have. Not once.

Edited February 19, 2012 by juliann

[juliann]

While I have no interest in having a polygamous relationship in this life, why would I refuse in the next?

Well.....for starters, maybe because a married man or woman publicly ruminating about other men or women is considered a serious breach of the law of chastity in modern Mormon thinking?

But just for fun, when are you planning on hooking up with other women? I ask because we all know that sealings are an earthly ordinance only.

[juliann]

Hudson did make a strong case for remembering that monogamy is the norm, and polygamy the rare exception. There should not be any argument to that. But it is worth re-emphasizing, as I have been shocked at the numbers of members of the Church (mostly men) who believe that polygamy will return on earth again, and that polygamy will be the norm in the Celestial Kingdom - I don't see doctrine on that, especially that polygamy will make a return on earth, even during the millenium. (Although the Lord could make it return, if He desired, of course.)

Well said. A lot of former practices could return, I suppose. But given what our leaders are saying I think we are as safe in thinking this practice will never return as we are in thinking the priesthood ban will never return. I think that these members are responsible for keeping polygamy alive, so to speak. Without the baseless speculation about its return, polygamy would simply be a historical practice. I think the concern over future polygamy is what drives the concern over historical polygamy.

Edited February 19, 2012 by juliann

[zelder]

Well said. A lot of former practices could return, I suppose. But given what our leaders are saying I think we are as safe in thinking this practice will never return as we are in thinking the priesthood ban will never return. I think that these members are responsible for keeping polygamy alive, so to speak. Without the baseless speculation about its return, polygamy would simply be a historical practice. I think the concern over future polygamy is what drives the concern over historical polygamy.

Is it baseless for people to think monogamy may not always be the hard set rule? I'm not certain but I thought there were prophets who have stated that polygamy will return during the millenium. If my memmory serves me correctly, that would be a basis regardless of whether or not those statements are true or turn out to be true.

The problem with your argument is that polygamy (unlike the priesthood ban) is in the scriptures. It has the undeniable stamp of approval from God. It's not inherently evil. It's a lifestyle choice. I think it's a bit closeminded to think that monogamy will always be the only acceptable form of marriage, especially in a liberal world of changing values. You might be correct but I doubt it.

[inquiringmind]

That's not true anymore. As long as all parties are deceased, women can be sealed to all husbands to whom they were ever married.

So both polygamy and polyandry will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom?

A woman could have multiple husbands, each of whom could have multiple wives?

[zelder]

So both polygamy and polyandry will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom?

A woman could have multiple husbands, each of whom could have multiple wives?

Who knows? In my opninion sure what not? I think it's perfectly natural. The only thing that matters is that people love each other, that they are secure and feel happy. If nobody is jealous and people want to live like that why not? I see no inherent evil in it.

[juliann]

Is it baseless for people to think monogamy may not always be the hard set rule? I'm not certain but I thought there were prophets who have stated that polygamy will return during the millenium. If my memmory serves me correctly, that would be a basis regardless of whether or not those statements are true or turn out to be true.

The problem with your argument is that polygamy (unlike the priesthood ban) is in the scriptures. It has the undeniable stamp of approval from God. It's not inherently evil. It's a lifestyle choice. I think it's a bit closeminded to think that monogamy will always be the only acceptable form of marriage, especially in a liberal world of changing values. You might be correct but I doubt it.

So you think that there will be dramatic amounts of excess women in the Millennium? Why? What happened to all the males? Satan get 'em? Do you think men will start poaching each other's wives to get the magic number if there isn't enough to give every man a couple of women? What is the magic number that satisfies the celestial requirement? Will those who can secure the most women have additional status? If not status, what is the point? Is it a sign of righteousness like a reward? Or does the very fact of having more women make a man more righteous?

LIke I said, there has been nothing said by our modern prophets. Anyone who wants to promote polygamy has to go back to former prophets....which becomes a problem when we are told to follow living prophets and those that don't tend to start forming those little break away groups..... I don't understand why this topic is continually rehashed when all that needs to be done to put it to rest is any statement from an authority. Anything that would supercede the Manifestos. Anything. Without that rewriting the Proclamation on the Family is all conjecture. We might as well be doing the interior decorating for mansions and bidding for land on Kolob. It doesn't look any less goofy and nobody has said it won't happen.

(And I don't mean to sound as snarky as it is but these are the thoughts that pop into my head when I hear this stuff, there is just so little support for polygamy as an eternal necessity that I think a lot of questions have to be answered before moving on with that idea.)

Edited February 19, 2012 by juliann

[Calm]

So both polygamy and polyandry will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom?

A woman could have multiple husbands, each of whom could have multiple wives?

If the reason for celestial polygny is that it is unfair and diminishes the love and happiness a man can experience to ask a man to choose between women he has loved and lived with, had children or raised a family with or grew old together with, then surely it is just as unfair and inappropriate to ask a woman to choose between men she has done the same thing with for the same reasons....unless one believes that for some reason men are capable of loving more than one woman at a time, but a woman for some reason is not and will have no problem turning her back on men who she has loved in the past because somehow that love instantly dies because she loves another.

So if the reason for celestial polygyny is to maximize the joy and family relationships of men, then it seems only natural that there will be celestial polyandry present to maximize the joy and family relationships of women for all those who desire it (this is not to suggest that the eternities will be one long orgy of free love, LDS look on the eternal marriage relationship more in terms of its place in the family structure as well as personal development and opportunities to serve and share charity as well as the more romantic form of love (which has only recently played a major role in determining marriage relationships in mortality).

Also why would sealings that women accepted be any less eternal than sealings men accepted? And why would there be any difference between sealings covenanted when alive and sealing covenanted when dead? If so, then the sealings of women to multiple husbands are all just as valid as the ones of men to multiple wives, no matter when they are made. If the former can be set aside for whatever reason, then it makes sense that the latter can be as well so there is no more likely reason for men to engage in multiple relationships as it would be for women.

Remember this is not an eternal arrangement between mortals where one has to deal with limited time and resources and carnal emotions of jealousy and resentment, but relationships that exist in a context of eternity---no limits on time or power to devote to any relationship---and between perfect individuals with perfect love and understanding of each other who are already one in harmony with each other as they are one with the Father and the Son.

Edited February 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[juliann]

So both polygamy and polyandry will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom?

A woman could have multiple husbands, each of whom could have multiple wives?

What is the alternative? Ordinances done for women are automatically invalid? Perhaps that would be helpful now that all heck is breaking loose over work for the dead. We could just announce that only men's ordinances actually mean anything so we are really only responsible for half of what they accuse us of.

[cinepro]

What will I teach my children about polygamy? I will teach them that it's a mystery. I'll start with the basics. I'll tell them that D&C 132 clearly teaches that polygyny is acceptable in the eyes of God at times and God condnes it and as long as the first wife gives her consent.

One of the mysteries being why Joseph didn't get his first wife's consent for some of his polygamous marriages...

[Peppermint Patty]

So you think that there will be dramatic amounts of excess women in the Millennium? Why? What happened to all the males? Satan get 'em? Do you think men will start poaching each other's wives to get the magic number if there isn't enough to give every man a couple of women? What is the magic number that satisfies the celestial requirement? Will those who can secure the most women have additional status? If not status, what is the point? Is it a sign of righteousness like a reward? Or does the very fact of having more women make a man more righteous?

LIke I said, there has been nothing said by our modern prophets. Anyone who wants to promote polygamy has to go back to former prophets....which becomes a problem when we are told to follow living prophets and those that don't tend to start forming those little break away groups..... I don't understand why this topic is continually rehashed when all that needs to be done to put it to rest is any statement from an authority. Anything that would supercede the Manifestos. Anything. Without that rewriting the Proclamation on the Family is all conjecture. We might as well be doing the interior decorating for mansions and bidding for land on Kolob. It doesn't look any less goofy and nobody has said it won't happen.

(And I don't mean to sound as snarky as it is but these are the thoughts that pop into my head when I hear this stuff, there is just so little support for polygamy as an eternal necessity that I think a lot of questions have to be answered before moving on with that idea.)

Juliann and Cal,

EXCELLENT and well thought out posts. We have a lot of misconceptions and myths about polygamy embedded in our cultural. I think it's great to have these discussions and expose some of these misconceptions.

For me, I agree with Valerie Hudson that polygamy is best viewed as an Abrahamic sacrifice. Viewed any other way, it doesn't make doctrinal sense. And, as Juliann and Cal have pointed out, all one needs to do to expose the impossiblilty of polygamy is to perform a quick demographic analysis.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Peppermint Patty

[mbh26]

That is one of the reasons the Church does not cancel sealing’s of a wife in a divorce situation unless another marriage sealing is to take place,

Has a divorce ever taken place in which the woman was at fault as well? Would that not be something that matters to the Lord as well? The Church may not judge fault in a divorce but God will. I'd think whether or not you honor your covenants would be a big issue. What is choosing to marry in the temple worth if you don't honor your covenants?

[Jeff K.]

In terms of teaching. It is very straightforward, the Lord allowed polygamy and now He does not. Any reasons placed upon the Lord's decision are at best speculative, but that should not limit one from seeing what people may say. If the Lord decides to reinstate polygamy, then he will reinstate polygamy, it is not the reason the church exists, but it is part of our theological heritage going all the way back to Abraham.

[maxrep12]

A couple of folk have compared polygamy to an Abrahamic Sacrifice. That does not work. Joseph Smith did not approach Abraham with the request to sacrifice his son, and return a decision within 24 hours. God Approached Abraham.

[jwhitlock]

Some additional observations that I have on the subject:

- Assuming that the claim is accurate that no church leader has ever taught that polygamy will be practiced in the Celestial kingdom, it can also be claimed that no church leader has taught that it WON'T be practiced.

- I don't think anyone on this thread has stated that polygamy MUST be practiced in the Celestial kingdom; if it is just practiced by some, but not all, then the "work the numbers" argument against it is a moot point.

- All temple sealings done in this life are contingent only, and not final. They are preparatory ordinances and must be ratified later, typically after this life, to be made permanent.

- There's a great deal that the Lord will need to clean up after this life; we do the best we can, and let Him work things out.

- The concept of links and relationships between members of the human family, and how that all will work in eternity is poorly understood by us. Just as the claim that everyone in the Celestial kingdom must practice polygamy is not accurate, the claim that everyone in the Celestial kingdom must be monogamous is also inaccurate. Both represent an over-simplification of something that is much more complex than that.

- With the introduction of teachings on polygamy, polyandry, etc., God (through Joseph Smith) tried to teach the saints something about the different ways relationships work in eternity. Unfortunately, just like Joseph's (and Moses's) attempts to establish Zion among their people, many were unable to or did not want to understand things that made them think outside of their own narrow cultural prejudices about relationships. Rather than try to explain away or rationalize polygamy, I think we should study it to try to understand what the Lord is trying to tell us about eternity and our relationships there.

- Earthly temporal relationships are but a shadow of the relationships we have in eternity. We're severely constrained in our abilities here, including our ability to bind in relationships. Can you image what kinds of relationships we can have with others when we "know as we are known" and we are not constrained by the mental limitations we have now? We should not let our own cultural / trendy prejudices here constrain our perspective of what things are really like with God.

- From what I've read, those who practiced polygamy in righteousness were granted certain insights into relationships that we don't have. I suspect many of them would disagree significantly with us about the nature of eternal relationships, because of what God revealed to them. We let our current 21st century prejudices color our judgments about 19th century plural marriage practices many times.

- The Celestial kingdom is all about relationships; there is no existence in that kingdom without a significant web of what may be complex relationships with others. Those relationships will take many different forms; we do ourselves a disservice by viewing (with 21st century prejudice) polygamy, polyandry, etc. in purely sexual terms without considering other aspects of those relationships. Some of those differing types of relationships have shadows in our current temporal existence. For instance, in addition to the example of a widower/widow being sealed to a second spouse, I (as a male) have other binding relationships to females who are my mother, my sisters, and my daughters. When you think outside the box to consider polyandry in non-sexual terms, you may be able to get some interesting insights into relationships in eternity that we simply do not understand today.

- The concept of polygamy as just an Abrahamic test is somewhat flawed; Abraham was obedient right up until he was about to sacrifice Isaac, and was stopped from doing so. The practice of polygamy wasn't just a test, but was carried out as commanded.

I don't think that any definitive declaration can be made concerning the nature of polygamy (etc.) in the eternities. Too much of what I see going on concerning the subject is an attempt to explain it away or rationalize it, rather than truly to understand what it was all about. I see the practice of polygamy not simply as an Abrahamic test, but as something that can give is incredible insight into how God views our relationships with others. God is intimately aware of each one of us and my sealing with my wife is viewed as a partnership with Him (another interesting insight into marriage relationships); I find it very unlikely that a purely monogamous concept of relationships in the Celestial kingdom is anywhere near accurate.

[zelder]

So you think that there will be dramatic amounts of excess women in the Millennium? Why? What happened to all the males? Satan get 'em? Do you think men will start poaching each other's wives to get the magic number if there isn't enough to give every man a couple of women? What is the magic number that satisfies the celestial requirement? Will those who can secure the most women have additional status? If not status, what is the point? Is it a sign of righteousness like a reward? Or does the very fact of having more women make a man more righteous?

That's not what I think. Most Mormons tend to view polygamy as strickly polygynous. Maybe because that’s the way it was done under Brigham Young and because D&C 132 focuses on that arrangement. A strictly polygynous society can't work. Not only is it an impossible numbers game but it is also unfair and unnatural. Joseph Smith appears to have been practicing polygynandry. And as I stated previously verse 41 in section 132 subtly leaves the door open to that.

A marriage is like a miniature community living the united order. They have everything in common. They share money, time and talents with each other. They are always there for each other through the good times and the bad. The only difference between a righteous sexual relationship and an unrighteous sexual relationship is a covenant. The covenant binds them together and through that covenant they learn to love each other. The sexual relation is an important component that holds the relationship together. Is there anything wrong with expanding the covenant to include additional people (additional men and/or women)? Of course not. In fact, I think it might be necessary to expand the covenant if we are to live the united order as a church. By including additional people in the covenant, you simply expand the mini community of righteous people living the united order. You expand the number of people sharing all things in common.

I think there is a valid argument for the idea that humans are not naturally monogamous. At least not universally monogomous. Both men and women are attracted to more than one person on the planet. I think most people could benefit from multiple lovers. We could benefit financially, emotionally, socially, sexually etc. It's just harder. It requires a more mature society, it requires more love. If we are having a difficult time making monogamous relationships work then we have no business adding additional people to our marriages. If people don't love each other plural marriage becomes an unloving popularity contest, a meat market. That's obviously not what God wants.

Edited February 19, 2012 by zelder

[zelder]

One of the mysteries being why Joseph didn't get his first wife's consent for some of his polygamous marriages...

D&C 132 verse 61 states that the first wife must give her consent for the husband to take a second wife. Verse 64 states that the man who hold the keys of this [sealing] power (aka the prophet) can take a second without her consent. The prophet is the only man that than take plural wives without the consent of the first.

[Freedom]

Any attempt to determine the nature of our relationships in the next life is like having a group of 6 year olds explain teenage hormones. We are, in essence, gods in embryo. We are so limited by our immaturity and ignorance that it is pointless to determine what is to come. If there is no jealousy, no sexual deviance, no sense of emotional abandonment, many of the criticisms of polygamy goes away. There may or may not be polygamy in the next life. Women may or may not have more than one husband and men may or may not have more than one wife. We can no more define the nature of our eternal relationships than a 6 year old can define the emotions of a 15 year old.

Arriving in the Celestial kingdom may be like going through puberty. A whole new realm of emotions and sensations will be awoken in us that we could not ever imagine before. If this life is a type and a shadow, we may go through a sharp emotional learning curve all over again to adjust to the new glorified circumstances. We may look back at these debates about polygamy and laugh as we see how naive we once were. Young children think of kissing as disgusting but adults are quit accommodating to far intimate affections.

We can neither reject or embrace the possibility of polygamy in the next life. There is the suggestion that there may be an imbalance of the number of males and females but this is also naive. This assumes that the only people to populate the realm of the Gods comes from this earth. There are countless worlds with souls advancing to exaltation. If there are twice as many women as men that enter this domain from the earth, there may be other planets where the statistics are reversed. Just as my children may marry someone that doesn't even live in our country at this time, some of us may end up married to someone who never lived on this planet.

[Calm]

all one needs to do to expose the impossiblilty of polygamy is to perform a quick demographic analysis.

On an wholesale basis at least....unless one balances polygyny with polyandry.

[why me]

Did you grow up in the Church?

I would beg to differ. There have been mixed feelings about it since as long as I can remember, which goes back to the early 60s.

I have been a member since 1975 and it was never an issue. No one spoke about it. It was just something that happened in the past. Maybe in the mormon corridor it has been an issue but over the mountains, no issue at all. It has become more of an issue because of the flds problem. And also because of the internet where critics painted it as a group of oversexed men, oppressing women.

[mbh26]

If people don't love each other plural marriage becomes an unloving popularity contest, a meat market.

I've heard the exact same pejorative term used for the dating scene at BYU. That sure wasn't a Celestial setup. All was fair in love and war for sure even amongst otherwise good people.

[why me]

I've heard the exact same pejorative term used for the dating scene at BYU. That sure wasn't a Celestial setup. All was fair in love and war for sure even amongst otherwise good people.

It has to do with our desire to procreate with the best possible mate. It is no different in the animal kingdom. However, we humans, tend to rationalize it away.

[Calm]

I have been a member since 1975 and it was never an issue. No one spoke about it. It was just something that happened in the past. Maybe in the mormon corridor it has been an issue but over the mountains, no issue at all.

Maybe the women simply didn't talk about their issues with it in front of the men.....but most LDS women and girls I know from as early as i can remember the topic coming up were more likely to be uncomfortable with the thought of having to practice plural marriage myself no matter what they thought about historical plural marriage.

[Jeff K.]

I have known very few LDS women who did not have an opinion, did not want to share an opinion, or were the shy retiring type that did not venture an opinion. My experience has been that they want their opinion known and will be in the forefront of carrying out that task, no matter how uncomfortable it may make their husbands in Sunday School, or at home.

[Calm]

So how often have you do heard women discuss polygamy at home or in class and did they bring it up at home on their own?

I would agree with you on most subjects that they are quite comfortable speaking up. OTOH, I have heard and have experienced myself a sense that 'now is not the time to say what I really feel about this' on a number of topics at church....a great deal depends on who is part of the crowd.

Edited February 20, 2012 by calmoriah