A Different Kind Of Polygamy Thread

[inquiringmind]

This isn't from an anti or ex site, I found it interesting, and I'd be interested in your thoughts here.

Raise up seed unto me

June 6, 2006 | 38 commentsBy Adam Greenwood

I have a couple of theological and historical/statistical questions about the reasons for polygamy.

People who know more than I do have told me that widespread polygamy was not a response to an imbalance between the numbers of men and women. In Deseret the sexes were in roughly equal ratio.

They also say that polygamy was not an attempt to increase the birth rate. Deseret polygamy, like polygamy generally, seems to have lowered the birth rate at least a little. Neither the birth rate nor the sex imbalance are reasons that work.

Jacob quotes a divine reason in his sermon on concubines and whoredoms: “For if I will . . . raise up seed unto me, I will command my people.” Notice that this isn’t just the discredited concern about birth rates. The Lord says he wants not just to “raise up seed,” but to “raise up seed unto me.”

We cannot be sure that this is the reason for polygamy in Deseret times. Jacob was explaining why Abraham and Isaac practiced polygamy, not why Brigham Young and Brother...[edited]] did. And I’m pretty sure that the reasons Brigham Young and Brother...[edited] gave for polygamy weren’t that it was a temporary thing necessary to raise up seed (though I could be wrong). On the other hand, D&C 130 does tie polygamy to Abraham, whose polygamy the verse in Jacob is explaining. Its probably worth trying to see if “raising up seed unto me” works as an explanation for polygamy in Utah. If we can.

If “seed being raised up unto me” means a greater number of people who are exalted, we have no way of measuring, unless we assume that there’s some here-and-now statistic that’s correlated with exaltation (children being raised in the church, e.g.) or if we adopt some Jan Shipps -style, double theological rimshot where polygamy makes the Church persecuted which in turn keeps it from dissolving which, long term, results in more members and more exaltation.

On the other hand, “seed being raised up unto me” could just mean (1) children being raised in the church, or (2) children who are in the covenant because both of their parents are faithful. If the modern data showing that women who marry gentiles or inactive saints are less likely to raise their kids Mormon applies to Deseret, then the two would tend to overlap considerably, though the Deseret practice of sealing outside family units might complicate this a little. In any case, either should be measurable in theory. At least in theory we should be able to show that while the birth rates over all may have been lower, the number of children raised in the church or with both parents active was higher than it otherwise would have been.

This leads us to an even greater puzzle. Even if we do establish that polygamy effectively “raised up seed unto me,” the reason why it ended in Deseret in particular is still no mystery. The US government had a gun to the Church’s head. That doesn’t explain why we don’t practice polygamy now, when the gun is largely removed. It also doesn’t explain why Jacob (or the Lord speaking through Jacob) would view polygamy as the exception rather than the rule. We would either have to think that there are other considerations that generally override the need for seed (Jacob suggests that the tender feelings of women are one such consideration), or that polygamy only “raises up seed unto me” under specific circumstances that don’t generally hold. A third explanation–that “raising up seed unto me” was only the purpose of Abraham’s polygamy, not polygamy generally–would work for the Church’s unwillingness to return to polygamy now but not the Book of Mormon refusal to do so.

http://timesandseaso...p-seed-unto-me/

Note: At the suggestion of sparticus the above quote has been edited (though I believe the deleted phrase was meant to be more or less equivalent to "John Doe.")

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[thesometimesaint]

We still have faithful memebers who, while not polygamous themselves, do have polygamous ancestors.

[pcarthew]

The reasons for polygamy really matter no more, we are fairly assured by history that polygamous relationships were not sex crazed psychos' looking for orgy's, they by almost all accounts in church history very stable and loving. We no longer practice polygamy, very little is to be gained by ploughing the paddock over and over again. By revelation the practice was ceased a very long time ago, whether is was raising righteous seed, looking after those who couldn't fend for themselves or living a higher order, it no longer is practiced.

[spartacus]

Obviously you are free to post a statement that basically says you don't want to talk about it and "we don't need to". But it kind of just implies that the OPer's interest is "inappropriate". Kind of a downer.

However, you bring up some points of interest to me, so:

The reasons for polygamy really matter no more, we are fairly assured by history that polygamous relationships were not sex crazed psychos' looking for orgy's, they by almost all accounts in church history very stable and loving.

I wonder what these "almost all accounts" are. If you have some definitive sources, please post or message me, thanks.

We no longer practice polygamy, very little is to be gained by ploughing the paddock over and over again.

Technically polygamy is still practiced by the LDS church INSOFAR as it is a KIND of polygamy (but a polygamy nonetheless) - that is, spiritual polygamy. This is practiced when widowers (whose first wife was sealed to them) are married and sealed to a new wife. So it isn't polygamy in this life, but it is polygamy. It is safe to say that simply because it is spiritual does not make it less important; more so in fact, for the spirit is at least as important as the physical, and it is eternal, which is more important, or at least longer, than this mortal life.

By revelation the practice was ceased a very long time ago, whether is was raising righteous seed, looking after those who couldn't fend for themselves or living a higher order, it no longer is practiced.

The status of the Manifesto as "revelation" is controversial as it still isn't referred to in the DnC as a revelation, nor does it seem to have been referred to as one for quite some time after it was given. Also there seems to be significant evidence that LDS leadership still authorized and lived polygamy even after this proclamation. It wasn't until a decade or so later that the leadership "cracked down".

Also, statements like this go under a maligned category of LDS responses that could be summed up as "that was a long time ago". Polygamy is very much a "current" issue if for no other reason than that it is still in official scripture - scripture is supposed to be discussed and rediscussed ("ploughed...over and over again") in order to plunge its depths of wisdom. There are, of course, many other reasons why it should be discussed.

But I believe the point of the OP was to discuss it as scripture/revelation/part of God's Will, etc. So its kind of interesting that you go straight to the "crazy psycho's" talk. This is part of the "it was a long time ago" brushing off. If you don't want to discuss it, let others.

[spartacus]

First, I don't know how the board guidelines work for quotes, but it may have been courteous to edit the euphemism for Joseph Smith in brackets and just noted that the edit was by you. Obviously I am not a mod, but I thought I would give a friendly pointer. The mods may not even mind, but it may help with others here.

Second, I find that this quote is using a particular interpretation of that verse that, while common among all types of Saints, is not at all necessary nor is the verse sufficient for it. So I find it difficult to work with it. I was a little surprised that he interpretted it as being a justification of Abraham and Jacob. I don't see that at all in the Book of Mormon, quite the contrary.

However his interpretation of the verse and its context seems unfounded, it does lead to an interesting thought experiment on that phrase of raising up seed and Deseret polygamy. The writer seems to do a decent job of analyzing the possibilities, given the assumed meaning and context.

I personally think that Jacob is clearly and categorically against polygamy. It should be much more possible, at least clearer, to try a "Deseret justification for polygamy" scenario like this starting from DnC instead of Jacob. (Unfortunately the writer wrote/referenced the wrong section of the DnC too! - oops!)

[inquiringmind]

First, I don't know how the board guidelines work for quotes, but it may have been courteous to edit the euphemism for Joseph Smith in brackets and just noted that the edit was by you.

I just edited it, but I don't think that phrase was meant as a euphemism for Joe Smith for three reasons.

1.) The author seems to be Mormon, and I don't think he meant any disrespect to the prophet.

2.) If he meant Joseph Smith I think he would have said Joseph Smith.

3.) Joseph Smith could hardly have said anything to justify "Deseret polygamy" when he died before the saints ever reached Deseret (Utah.)

I personally think that Jacob is clearly and categorically against polygamy.

You don't think "For If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall harken unto these things" provides for exceptions?

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[zielkee]

Technically polygamy is still practiced by the LDS church INSOFAR as it is a KIND of polygamy (but a polygamy nonetheless) - that is, spiritual polygamy. This is practiced when widowers (whose first wife was sealed to them) are married and sealed to a new wife. So it isn't polygamy in this life, but it is polygamy. It is safe to say that simply because it is spiritual does not make it less important; more so in fact, for the spirit is at least as important as the physical, and it is eternal, which is more important, or at least longer, than this mortal life.

The church practices more than serial polygamy; in family history, we seal all husbands to all their wives and all wives to all their husbands.

[abdullah786]

Polygamy is now more needed than ever and for blatant reasons. The female to male ratio in the world is staggering and if one was to take into account the abhorrent practices of certain places, with large populations, where most female fetus' are aborted, or even worse discarded after birth (may God forgive us) the ratio would be even more top heavy.

In the USA alone there are 7 million more females than male and even "if" every male got married, which will probably never happen, there will still be 7 million females that are "public property"..

If we look at the scriptures most of the prophets and messengers, peace be to them all, had more than one wife. In fact, I think the only prophet, key word "think", that did not have multiple wives was Jesus, peace be upon him, and he didn't even have a single wife.

Anyways. Men are naturally polygamous and women are naturally jealous so this topic is not an easy one to start off with but there are more reasons for it than against it. However in the case of women having multiple husbands that for many seemingly obvious reasons would lead to disasters. Just think about it. Not only are there diseases and medical conditions that come about from a women have more than one sexual partner (at least at one time) but then you have the case of unknown fatherhood. Only nowadays you can get tests for this kind of thing, which is super expensive for starters, so you would have the problem with "who is the father of this child" which would never, ever be the case the other way around.

Personally I only have one wife and God willing it will stay that way but these are just the facts.

Any comments?

[inquiringmind]

Polygamy is now more needed than ever and for blatant reasons. The female to male ratio in the world is staggering and if one was to take into account the abhorrent practices of certain places, with large populations, where most female fetus' are aborted, or even worse discarded after birth (may God forgive us) the ratio would be even more top heavy.

In the USA alone there are 7 million more females than male and even "if" every male got married, which will probably never happen, there will still be 7 million females that are "public property"..

If we look at the scriptures most of the prophets and messengers, peace be to them all, had more than one wife. In fact, I think the only prophet, key word "think", that did not have multiple wives was Jesus, peace be upon him, and he didn't even have a single wife.

Anyways. Men are naturally polygamous and women are naturally jealous so this topic is not an easy one to start off with but there are more reasons for it than against it. However in the case of women having multiple husbands that for many seemingly obvious reasons would lead to disasters. Just think about it. Not only are there diseases and medical conditions that come about from a women have more than one sexual partner (at least at one time) but then you have the case of unknown fatherhood. Only nowadays you can get tests for this kind of thing, which is super expensive for starters, so you would have the problem with "who is the father of this child" which would never, ever be the case the other way around.

Personally I only have one wife and God willing it will stay that way but these are just the facts.

Any comments?

I think it could also be argued that women tend to be (generally, and all things being equal) better than men.

So even if the number of men and women were equal, there might not be enough good men to go around.

But I'm interested in your statistics.

Could you cite some sources?

(BTW: What does CFR stand for, and is that what I'm asking him for here?)

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

where most female fetus' are aborted, or even worse discarded after birth (may God forgive us) the ratio would be even more top heavy

This leads to an excess of men, not women and by your logic would encourage the use of polyandry or multiple husbands for one woman.

=====

im, CFR is "Call for References" which you just did.

Edited April 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[inquiringmind]

This leads to an excess of men, not women and by your logic would encourage the use of polyandry or multiple husbands for one woman.

=====

im, CFR is "Call for References" which you just did.

Thank you Calmoriah.

Does anyone know if there are really 7 million more women than men in the United States?

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

Don't know how accurate it is:

http://en.wikipedia....es_by_sex_ratio

According to this site, the numbers are becoming closer, at least in the US: http://www.nationala...e/a_gender.html

According to Census 2000, 281.4 million people were counted in the United States — 143.4 million of whom were female and 138.1 million male.¹ The former made up 50.9 percent of the population, compared with 51.3 percent in 1990.

****difference is 5.3 million.

Edited April 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[inquiringmind]

Thank you Calmoriah.

I'm trying to understand D&C 132:63.

How do you understand the part about bearing the souls of men in the eternal worlds?

Do you take it literally?

Do you expect to be pregnant with spirit children after your bodily resurrection?

And can flesh give birth to spirit?

(I'm thinking of John 3:6 here, and it seems like a contradiction.)

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

I don't believe we know the 'mechanical' process of creation of spirits. I definitely don't believe I will spend eternity pregnant, either spiritually or physically. My mother used to joke that the way it was sometimes discussed by nonmembers sounded like a picture we had in a Time Life Science book of a termite queen. This below is similar:

[inquiringmind]

I don't believe we know the 'mechanical' process of creation of spirits. I definitely don't believe I will spend eternity pregnant, either spiritually or physically. My mother used to joke that the way it was sometimes discussed by nonmembers sounded like a picture we had in a Time Life Science book of a termite queen. This below is similar:

But then, how do you interpret D&C 132:63?

But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

"That they may bear the souls of men" doesn't make much sense to me if I take it literally (especially if the "soul" equals a spirit and a body), but I don't see any other way to take it.

Do you?

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

"or they are given unto him to ^amultiply and replenish the earth": obviously refers to mortality,

"according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world": I believe this refers to what might have occurred during the Council in Heaven (whether it was during the actual event or just taught us in the preexistence doesn't really matter in my view), it refers to, I would say, an eternal covenant/law that God has made

"and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds": marriage and family being part of the covenants of God that bless us with exaltation

"that they may bear the souls of men": LDS often define "souls" as body and spirit, I don't know if this was the intent in this verse or not, if so it would refer to mortality for sure and may refer to immortality as well, I do not know what will occur but women have been promised they will not be deprived of any righteous desire of their heart if they are faithful and that includes being a mother so it would seem possibly that procreation in the eternities includes both spiritual birth (though I suspect this is a completely different process of organization) and physical birth. I have only been able to have two children myself and would greatly love to have more so I am hoping for this myself.

Edited April 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

When I get the chance, I will see if more is said in the D&C commentaries I have.

[inquiringmind]

When I get the chance, I will see if more is said in the D&C commentaries I have.

THANK YOU.

P.S. I didn't know there was any such thing as a D&C commentary, if anyone knows of any available online please post a link (or pm me.)

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[abdullah786]

Don't know how accurate it is:

http://en.wikipedia....es_by_sex_ratio

According to this site, the numbers are becoming closer, at least in the US: http://www.nationala...e/a_gender.html

According to Census 2000, 281.4 million people were counted in the United States — 143.4 million of whom were female and 138.1 million male.¹ The former made up 50.9 percent of the population, compared with 51.3 percent in 1990.

****difference is 5.3 million.

Nice, thanks for the reference. Well it's safe to say that the numbers are definitely tentative and only God truly knows. But it's a biblical fact the most of the prophets, peace be upon the all, had more than one wife.

[Calm]

If one looks at how the phrase "bear the souls of men" is used in talks and such, it appears to mostly refer to mortality.  

For example:

A man who holds the priesthood has reverence for motherhood. Mothers are given a sacred privilege to “bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of [the] Father continued, that he may be glorified”.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/m2-men-4.asp

and

But a mother’s role is also God-ordained. Mothers are to conceive, to bear, to nourish, to love, and to train. So declare the revelations.

In section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord states that the opportunity and responsibility of wives is “to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified”.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/eternal-marriage-student-manual/u-w-women-3.asp

Sisters received special gifts. They, according to the Lord, were empowered “to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, … for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; … herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.” Think of it: When a mother bears and cares for a child, she not only helps the earth answer the end of its creation, but she glorifies God!

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/how-firm-our-foundation?lang=eng

The man alone holds the holy priesthood and is appointed to care for and give spiritual guidance to his wife. But it rests with the woman, as our revelations recite, to “bear the souls of men,” that the work of the Eternal Father may be “continued, that he may be glorified.”

http://www.lds.org/new-era/1978/05/mothers-in-israel-and-daughters-of-zion?lang=eng

It is also used as a footnote for "seed" in Jacob which would imply mortality, imo:  http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/2/30a

Also the verse itself is speaking to chastity, which I assume will not be a concern when we are immortal as it is now in mortality.

I would say that the phrase "bear the souls of men" is consistently interpreted to mean during our mortal existence.

Edited April 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

THANK YOU.

P.S. I didn't know there was any such thing as a D&C commentary, if anyone knows of any available online please post a link (or pm me.)

There is one that is used for Institute: http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/

This is a classic one, my copy is from my grandmother's collection, IIRC: http://deseretbook.com/Doctrine-Covenants-Commentary-Janne-M-Sjodahl/i/b503

This is my favourite collection as it includes history, but it still misses some details of history I wish it didn't and it doesn't deal with all the obscure stuff, but then it would just likely be speculation anyway so it's better they stick to what is generally understood: http://deseretbook.com/Commentary-Doctrine-Covenants-Set-Stephen-E-Robinson/i/5018913

I love this author, have his Old Testament commentary as well (took OT classes from his son, Victor): http://deseretbook.com/Companion-Your-Study-Doctrine-Covenants-Daniel-H-Ludlow/i/3292000

[inquiringmind]

If one looks at how the phrase "bear the souls of men" is used in talks and such, it appears to mostly refer to mortality.

For example:

http://institute.lds...al/m2-men-4.asp

and

http://institute.lds...u-w-women-3.asp

http://www.lds.org/g...dation?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/n...f-zion?lang=eng

It is also used as a footnote for "seed" in Jacob which would imply mortality, imo: http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/2/30a

Also the verse itself is speaking to chastity, which I assume will not be a concern when we are immortal as it is now in mortality.

I would say that the phrase "bear the souls of men" is consistently interpreted to mean during our mortal existence.

Thank you.

[Calm]

You might find the resources for CES teachers useful, most are available online for free: https://docs.google....PuZnLAZAKbGfI3Q

BYU Studies also has some resources: https://byustudies.b.../dclessons.aspx

http://byutv.org/sho...f4-f3bf6c214714 (the quality of discussions varies)

I like this site for the historical references: http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/s/_d&c.phtml

This might be useful for you in your attempts to study verses in detail: http://books.google.com/books?id=52NAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP9&dq=%22doctrine+and+covenants%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DpyLT9TbLazciQKl9czpCw&ved=0CI4BEOgBMA4#v=onepage&q=%22doctrine%20and%20covenants%22&f=false

Edited April 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[spartacus]

You don't think "For If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall harken unto these things" provides for exceptions?

I think that every reference to polygamy in Jacob is obviously negative to the extreme and so it would be like God saying "this is an abominable, horrible activity, but I might tell you to do it, but until then - no!". I just don't see that being the case.

So what could this verse mean? Well, I know Matt 3:9 says (John the Baptist speaking) "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."

In the least the verse simply says "i will command my people". It doesn't say what. Considering the evil way that polygamy is described throughout this entire chapter it seems unlikely that God is saying He will command them to do it. So I have to believe He is saying He will command them another way - Matt 3:9 shows that there are all kinds of ways - including "go gather some stones".

The "otherwise they shall harken unto these things" is really the only thing that someone could possibly seize upon to somehow indicate that God is considering the abominable practice of polygamy as a real option. However, again, this seems unlikely. So what does that part of the verse mean? I think it can most easily be taken as simply saying "unless I give you another means of raising up seed, (you should do what I tell you to do and) you should not do what I tell you not to do". He has been implying non-polygamy (single spouse marriage) as the thing to do by banning polygamy, and so polygamy would be the censured act which one is "not to do".

Given the verse itself - which doesn't say anything about polygamy at all, let alone saying that he would actually command polygamy - it could possibly go either way (polygamy commandable or not). But given the entire chapter around that verse it seems completely unlikely that God means that polygamy is a possible command. Thus I read the verse simply stating that if God wants seed raised, he'll tell us the right way. I don't think anything "abominable" is going to be considered "the right way".

[why me]

Nice, thanks for the reference. Well it's safe to say that the numbers are definitely tentative and only God truly knows. But it's a biblical fact the most of the prophets, peace be upon the all, had more than one wife.

I think that lds past polygamy would be a net plus in the arab world and also in some parts of africa. I don't think that many would have a problem with that part of lds history.