D&C 132 Verse 41 - Polyandry

[Darren10]

And further consider the life of Andrew Jackson. His wife never formally divorced her first husband and there are questions as to the formality of the Jackson's wedding. Voters seemed to accept the frontier circumstances.

Of course, he was shot in a duel over an insult relating to this, so there was criticism.

Very good points there.

[Darren10]

Darren, You and I will part here.

What??? After all we've been through together? (Just kidding)

God has made it clear to me that the gospel is emotional at its root.

Here's what I said (bold mine):

I'm not one to cater to "emotions" when expressed by others to make a point. Emotions are irrational, though deifintely have a purpose in human existence.

Yes, there's *difinitely* emotin in the gospel. How that emotion is manifest, how intense it "should be", when it shoud be applied is entirely up to debate. *As for me*, I do not listen to emtions "when making a point". I'd much rather know how one *thinks* than how one *feels* when making a point. By nature, emotions do not evoke rationale. They most defintely evoke conviction but when making a point, by and large I want to know what the point is, not how convicted one is to a point. The fact that your emotions are to go through the roof if you were to "share" your wife with another man, is all fine and dandy for it shows that you love your wife and are devotedt her. But what exactly was your point in stating that sharing a spouse is emotional?

As far as things like "gaining a testimony", yes, emotions can and do play a big part in that. I know it has and does for me. In regards to faith, I agree tha emotions are significant and should be. But when you focused on your emotions in your arguments I'm left void in knowing exactly wha you want to convey.

I also think that your emphasis on emotions is why you find a scriptural passage "offensive" while I fnd no offense in reading the same passage. Of course reading it, especially whebn i read it the first time (before this thread began) I had questions about it and it seemd emotional to me but what did emotions do to enlghten me as tothe insights of that passage? I drove me to*want* to learn about it but it was rational thinking which openexd up that passage's "mysteries" to me.

Emotions do play a part in human exitence but many times they areusless, especially when they are allowed to dominate one's thinking.

My wife sleeping with other men would not under any circumstance do that for me, so I bow out from that obligation on that premise alone.

And such is the same for women who enter into polygamous marriages yet you dismissed polygamy as a sort of scriptural norm. I was the one who pointed out that plural marriage is hard for spouses of such relationships. This is for both men and women though I would agree it's wise not to let another rooster into the hen house. now, I again ask, having your emotions dominate making yourp oint, how has tha helped you understand the D&C passage you found "offensive"? I cannot see anywhere how domineering emotions has helped you understand it at all. Polyandry was practice by Joseph Smith yet there is no evidence of these marriages being sexual in any way, shape, or form. Thinknig about this passage and researching its historic practice in the Church helps you understabnd it. Not just feeling offended by itand upset about its application.

But I don't operate under the same structure you do. If the gospel didn't lift me emotionally and bring peace, comfort, hope, faith (all emotional feelings) then I would have never joined, I would have kept using drugs & alcohol, and found other ways to spend my time.

I think this is a great segway into a personal experience of mine regarding drugs and alcohol. I never drank alcohol nor did any illegal drugs. All drugs I've used have been over the counter, perscribed by a doctor or administered in a hospital and used as directed. But most of my friends in high school did drugs and drank rgularly. There came a time I thought "why not just try it?" This grew to a point that I seriously wanted to use it but it didn't seem right. So I took it tothe lord. To that point in my life I NEVER had prayers answered in dreams but that's precisely how this prayer was answered over I think two nights. I had a total of three dreams bout going ahead and drinking a little bt of alcohol. Each one progressed further in its story and I began to use drugs. As I digressed, so di my feeling of being in the presence of God. The third dream had me feeling departed completely from God and wanting to kill myself. Thinking about killing myself (in my dream, mind you) a voice came very clear "then you'll have to deal with me". Knowing at that point I would be utterly unworthy to stand in the presence of holiness I feklt dread and sought repentence (still in my dream). That's wen I woke up in a cold sweat and realizing theat this dream was an answer to my prayers, I immediately knelt down beside my bed and thanked god for answering my prayers. I know myself and know that if I made the same choices in real life as I did in my dream the real life results would be the same as in my dream.

I ralrely share this experience with anyone, let alone online. But it seemed appropriate for this discussion. For did I feel emtions? Absolutely. but what did those emotions do in and of themselves? nothing beyond *wanting* to do something. Taking that emotional desire I chose to stop and *think* about what to do regarding my (real life) temptation to drink and to do drugs. My emtions combined by thinking lead me to resolve my concern and overcome a volatile temptation in life. I think that emtions have their correct purpose in our progression towards God but in and of themselves do little to help us learn anything as to *how* to come closer to God.

I'm very glad you felt the Spirit in your life and wholeheartedly encourage you to build on those spiritual promptings. I'll also conveythat when you want to make a point about something, give some intelectual insight to explain your point. Also, use your emotions to open up thinking and learning. You emtions and and should be part of your desires. Once you have a righteous desire, learn about how to develope it and go out and apply what you learned.

It is the emotional joy of the gospel that keeps me pressing forward with steadfasteness.

No doubt.

It is knowing how much better I feel spiritually and emotionally with the church and how hopeless and discouraged I feel in my sins.

Ditto that.

The gospel's emotional gifts are what causes me to reach higher

Good!!!

Keep up the good things you do in life.

[The Nehor]

God has made it clear to me that the gospel is emotional at its root.

I agree it is more emotional then rational as practiced in mortality.

That we are in Moroni chapter 7 instructed to do that which draws us closer to christ. My wife sleeping with other men would not under any circumstance do that for me, so I bow out from that obligation on that premise alone.

I would say you do not know that for sure. I imagine Abraham didn't think his faith would increase when asked to sacrifice Isaac but I suspect it did.

It is the emotional joy of the gospel that keeps me pressing forward with steadfasteness. It is knowing how much better I feel spiritually and emotionally with the church and how hopeless and discouraged I feel in my sins. The gospel's emotional gifts are what causes me to reach higher

I would urge you to prepare. The day will almost certainly come that you will be asked to do things that seem to cause emotional and even spiritual pain. I've had a few such tests. I passed some and failed some.

[blackstrap]

I wonder which would prove the greater stumbling block,being asked to share your wife, or being asked to kill innocent children as in ancient Israel? Which would cause the most emotional pain? Also,during pioneer times,many were asked to follow the prophet to the Salt Lake valley,and as a consequence lost spouses and children.Personally I am grateful that I have not been given such painful choices.(knock on wood).The Lord has said He will try us in the refiner's fire.I hope to avoid the writing on the wall " you have been weighed it the balance,and found wanting"

[Darren10]

I wonder which would prove the greater stumbling block,being asked to share your wife, or being asked to kill innocent children as in ancient Israel? Which would cause the most emotional pain? Also,during pioneer times,many were asked to follow the prophet to the Salt Lake valley,and as a consequence lost spouses and children.Personally I am grateful that I have not been given such painful choices.(knock on wood).The Lord has said He will try us in the refiner's fire.I hope to avoid the writing on the wall " you have been weighed it the balance,and found wanting"

Very good questions and historic example of sacrifice. All would require faith and even assurance /spiritual confirmation that these chosen actions were according to the will of God.

[DBMormon]

your right Sacrifice isn't called sacrifice because it's pleasent and gives you joyous goosebumps all over

Edited June 3, 2012 by reelmormon

[rodheadlee]

I think you have to take 41 through 44 to get the whole context. To me these verses say if one spouse breaks their covenants and becomes an unworthy adulterer she or he can be taken from the faithful spouse. If it be a woman who is faithful she can be given to another who is faithful and will keep the covenants.

Edited June 3, 2012 by rodheadlee

[why me]

I think you have to take 41 through 44 to get the whole context. To me these verses say if one spouse breaks their covenants and becomes an unworthy adulterer she or he can be taken from the faithful spouse. If it be a woman who is faithful she can be given to another who is faithful and will keep the covenants.

I think that you are right. But what is unfortunate is that people in the church can lose the context of the passage and then claim that the lds church hides its polygamy or polyandry.

[zelder]

I find this scripture offensive. Would you Brothers and sisters please help me frame this. Help me see this in better light. I see this as God can and has given men to a women who is already married without her husband's consent for her to be with including intimately. and as long as it was given by God it is ok. i know this may seem no different then a man marrying multiple wives when Polygamy was around but for some reason this scripture just doesn't strike me as something I am comfortable with.

I know I will get several opinions and I am looking forward to them and need them.

This is the scripture that had me reeling a few years ago and is why i originally signed up on this forum. I've come to peace with it. As has been stated previously, polygamy is something done with consent of all parties involved. Many women are offended by polygyny and would never share their husbands. However, some women wouldn't mind and some would even enjoy it. Likewise even though a lot men would never want to share, some would. There is a word used to describe good feelings some people get from sharing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compersion

You ever wonder what kind of deal Joseph had with God the Father over Mary? Who knows but I've decided there is nothing inherently evil with sharing. The only thing that matters is that people make covenants and love each other.

[Log]

I'm thinking this might cause more trouble for some, but it happens to be true, to the best of my knowledge, having heard it from multiple sources, including a faithful CES Institute instructor.

http://oscox.org/richardson/maryanndrichardson.html

Run a word search for "MORE FAMILY A Pearl of Great Price".

[bridget_night]

My brother has been married to my sister in law for 30 years now. She was sealed to her first husband who died after 14 years of marriage. She had no children with him. She has had one child with my brother. My brother adores my sister in law and wants her for eternity and she wants him too. Yet she also loves and wants her first husband. What would be wrong for her to have two husbands, if they both agreed to live polyandry?

[DBMormon]

that story was strong.... not sure I could do that LOG.

[zerinus]

I recall reading a statement from Joseph Smith somewhere to the effect that, "If I revealed to the Saints everything that the Lord has revealed to me, they would stone me". That is a paraphrase from memory. I cannot find a reference for it. There is also this interesting quote:

I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen. (Jan. 20, 1844.) DHC 6:183-185.

I am inclined to think that he was referring the divine laws governing the relationship between the sexes.

[CASteinman]

I find this scripture offensive. Would you Brothers and sisters please help me frame this. Help me see this in better light. I see this as God can and has given men to a women who is already married without her husband's consent for her to be with including intimately. and as long as it was given by God it is ok. i know this may seem no different then a man marrying multiple wives when Polygamy was around but for some reason this scripture just doesn't strike me as something I am comfortable with.

I know I will get several opinions and I am looking forward to them and need them.

I have four thoughts:

1. This can be offensive if one or both of the following things exist: One does not believe the revelation is from God or one believes it is from God but does not trust God to know what is good. Several commentaries mention this verse and point out that anything God commands is holy, by definition, even if it does not comport with man's understanding of holiness.

2. This seems to me to not be entirely out of harmony with Levirate Marriage such as the case of Ruth and Boaz. (Or perhaps not quite the same thing but close -- the woman who was married to 7 brothers, as attested to in Tobit.)

3. It may be the justification for sealings such as that of Mary Elizabeth Rollings Lightner to Joseph Smith -- so that for eternity she was married to Joseph Smith but on earth she was married to the consenting non-Mormon "Mr Lightner" (as she referred to him). The early Saints placed a huge amount of emphasis upon being sealed -- and being sealed to certain people. I suspect this was an honest and sincere, but misguided understanding of the sealing power that was later corrected upon reflection and under the influence of the Spirit by Wilford Woodruff, who was obviously quite familiar with the matter.

4. This may also permit a kind of "divorce" to occur in some cases and the Lord accepts a subsequent marriage by the woman as nevertheless valid.

That's about it for me. Maybe not much help.

[DJBrown]

I find this scripture offensive. Would you Brothers and sisters please help me frame this. Help me see this in better light. I see this as God can and has given men to a women who is already married without her husband's consent for her to be with including intimately. and as long as it was given by God it is ok. i know this may seem no different then a man marrying multiple wives when Polygamy was around but for some reason this scripture just doesn't strike me as something I am comfortable with.

I know I will get several opinions and I am looking forward to them and need them.

The important clause is "and if she be with another man." Does this mean a woman who is married to a man and has an extra-marital affair? In other words, is being "with another man" referring to having an affair with a man outside of her marriage?

[CV75]

as long as it was given by God it is ok.

I think this is most acurate and salient part, and is a sound basis for understanding the rest of D&C 132:41-44, which is primarily about adultery. The particulars of how a woman can be sealed to more than one man, such as whether the first sealing is broken or not, and extentuating circumstances pale in comparison to God' will being done, and seeking it, which after all, is meant to ensure our maximal happiness.

[DBMormon]

The story LOG shared was pretty heart wrenching. I just can't work in that paradigm. I couldn't do that..... sorry, glad some of you could. Ijust can't even if President Monson made the request. Now I hold out change of mind if an angel or some undeniable spiritual experience occured but more then a tingly feeling and a burning in the bosom

[Log]

The story LOG shared was pretty heart wrenching. I just can't work in that paradigm. I couldn't do that..... sorry, glad some of you could. Ijust can't even if President Monson made the request. Now I hold out change of mind if an angel or some undeniable spiritual experience occured but more then a tingly feeling and a burning in the bosom

That was precisely what it took. That is the sacrifice of Abraham.

There was something I wanted most in the world. It was literally next to my heart. I took it for granted that I should have it. I had a clear path to claim it as mine in this world. It never entered my heart to let it go.

And I was told to give it up, for the sake of someone else. Literally, for their sake. And I did.

Oh, how it rent my heart. I shed many tears, and suffered greatly because of it.

After I did it, I read D&C 101:1-6 and understood what was going on.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Log

[TruthSeeker24]

The story LOG shared was pretty heart wrenching. I just can't work in that paradigm. I couldn't do that..... sorry, glad some of you could. Ijust can't even if President Monson made the request. Now I hold out change of mind if an angel or some undeniable spiritual experience occured but more then a tingly feeling and a burning in the bosom

Really? Even if it meant that you would NEVER have a family on the other side?

[DBMormon]

Based on what I hope or have faith is on the other side? correct I can't give up what I have here, what I know; for what I hope or have faith will maybe be on the other side or maybe the reasoning the leader gave is misconstrued. No I couldn't. This far but no more.... I am willing to do a lot, but sacrificing my family in the here and now for what may or may not be in the by and by.... that's my line. God has entrusted me with them allowed me to have a love of this magnitude for them. It goes against everything we are engrained with to do that.

Log - yes they received an answer to their prayers but it would take something more definitive then that for me

[Log]

Log - yes they received an answer to their prayers but it would take something more definitive then that for me

Suppose it was an answer on the same level as your witness of the Spirit as to the truth of the Church. Would that not suffice?

[Darth_Bill]

If the spirit told you this was offensive...then perhaps you should listen to it. Otherwise, be satisfied that the prophet can take your wife, your approval or not. Your wife may approve though, if she does, well, then, maybe he can have her.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Darth_Bill

[CASteinman]

The story LOG shared was pretty heart wrenching. I just can't work in that paradigm. I couldn't do that..... sorry, glad some of you could. Ijust can't even if President Monson made the request. Now I hold out change of mind if an angel or some undeniable spiritual experience occured but more then a tingly feeling and a burning in the bosom

The folk in the story couldn't do it either until they got a vision from God.

[Darth_Bill]

And some of the women said no. I guess their spiritual experiences dont count.

[Log]

Yay, Darth Bill! Way to advance the conversation! Which of them had spiritual experiences? CFR, in other words.