why me Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 IF I ever tried to go back again, it would probably be sacrament meeting, only...although, I know my friends would try to persuade me to do more. It all sounds rather daunting, at this moment.Sacrament meeting can be boring if the speakers are dull. With relief society it can be more social. Plus, you will meet women and have a chat. True, friends would want you to do more but after a little chat, they will be glad that you will be coming to that one meeting. Plus, relief society will lead to weekday socials at church, if you are so inclined.
Calm Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 After so many generations polygamy would become normal. Which would mean any problems associated with polygamy would lessen or disappear. There are plenty of societies around the world that have been polygamous for eons. Please show me one where there is no jealousy among the wives and children or other personal issues arising out of the polygamous relationship.
Calm Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) I can't buy your premise. I can agree that some of the problems would be worked out but considering human nature I would say some of the solutions would be problems themselves. Human solutions tend to be self centered and as such there would be winners and losers.Bingo. The story of Leah and Rachel and Hannah and Peninnah who all existed in a society that had polygamy for many generations are examples that for some things, time is not the great healer. Some problems relating to human nature will always be there. Edited July 21, 2012 by calmoriah
why me Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Ray and WhyMe, I do appreciate the kind words and encouragement. Thank you.No problem. Start slow and don't worry about friends wanting you to do more. Eventually, they will accept just one meeting, especially after you tell your feelings. Relief Society or Sunday School would be the most social for you. And you can express your feelings and ideas.
ERayR Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 No problem. Start slow and don't worry about friends wanting you to do more. Eventually, they will accept just one meeting, especially after you tell your feelings. Relief Society or Sunday School would be the most social for you. And you can express your feelings and ideas.You may well be right.
tyler90az Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 That would depend on the father and how many wives a typical family has.In a community that is completely polygamous, there were have to be at minimum twice as many adult women as men. If each woman had three children, that makes for six children per father, not something that has been that unusual and it is certainly not unworkable for a father to have a very significant presence in each of his children's lives.However, what community is going to naturally have twice as many women as men (except in the case of war)? Typically there are more males born than females, though with their higher infant mortality rate and shorter life spans this eventually evens out. So in a closed society if all marriages were polygynous, then half the adult men would be unmarried. If it was true polygamy then this could be balanced by polyandry, but that would result in a family with less children per adult, not more.I think it would be the ideal family, but you do raise some good points about logistics. There was a show I watched about how the FLDS had to kick men out because there was not enough women.As far as a father being present in children's lives, I was more worried about having five wives with three children each. It would be very unlikely you would form a bond with each child. Most men do not have the capacity to be that good of a father. You hear about Boyd K. packer in conference always saying he came home and spent all his time with his children. Do you think all men are capable of that?
ERayR Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 I think it would be the ideal family, but you do raise some good points about logistics. There was a show I watched about how the FLDS had to kick men out because there was not enough women.As far as a father being present in children's lives, I was more worried about having five wives with three children each. It would be very unlikely you would form a bond with each child. Most men do not have the capacity to be that good of a father. You hear about Boyd K. packer in conference always saying he came home and spent all his time with his children. Do you think all men are capable of that?Don't take everything the drive by media presents at face value.
tyler90az Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Don't take everything the drive by media presents at face value.I like what Sun Tzu says, paraphrasing, "back a man up against death he is capable of anything."
Palerider Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Hasn't there been an asked-and-answered warning already on this in the thread? The portions of Section 132 dealing with plurality of lives have no application to anyone living today, because the commandment to the Church to practice it has been rescinded.Just because the practise has been rescinded doesn't mean the doctrine has been denounced. I have heard in many a priesthood meeting that although we don't live the law of consecration we should prepare our hearts to do so. I see no reason why a present day Mormon shouldn't question their own ability to accept plural marriage as a practise.I also have no doubt that IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES were correct.......the church leadership would not hesitate to re-introduce plural marriage.You speak as if there's no chance we will ever have to deal with plural marriage again in this life. Do you have any current writings to support that idea?
KevinG Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Just because the practise has been rescinded doesn't mean the doctrine has been denounced. I have heard in many a priesthood meeting that although we don't live the law of consecration we should prepare our hearts to do so. I see no reason why a present day Mormon shouldn't question their own ability to accept plural marriage as a practise.I also have no doubt that IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES were correct.......the church leadership would not hesitate to re-introduce plural marriage.You speak as if there's no chance we will ever have to deal with plural marriage again in this life. Do you have any current writings to support that idea?My theory is we aren't good enough at honoring monogamy to even consider the complexity of other marriage arrangements. Until people understand the new an everlasting covenant is about family and not sexual relations it will stay that way.I would not go as far as saying we must accept multiple sealings ourselves to be exalted but denigrating our fore bearers for obeying God won't win us any points. I've heard too many "good Saints" badmouthing what their ancestors did to obey God. I suspect they will be in for a rude awakening before being welcomed back into the family fold beyond the veil.
Libs Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 No problem. Start slow and don't worry about friends wanting you to do more. Eventually, they will accept just one meeting, especially after you tell your feelings. Relief Society or Sunday School would be the most social for you. And you can express your feelings and ideas.Oh boy, that may not be a good idea, at all.
ERayR Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Oh boy, that may not be a good idea, at all. I'll trust you to be discrete.
KevinG Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 I was more worried about having five wives with three children each. It would be very unlikely you would form a bond with each child. Most men do not have the capacity to be that good of a father. I have an ancestor (protestant) who lost two wives and remarried for a total of three wives and 15 children. He is remembered in the histories as a wonderful man and all of his children went on to have successful marriages.I contend that some men cannot find the proper time for one child while others would be quite capable of being a polygamous husband and father to many. 1
Palerider Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) My theory is we aren't good enough at honoring monogamy to even consider the complexity of other marriage arrangements. Until people understand the new an everlasting covenant is about family and not sexual relations it will stay that way.I would not go as far as saying we must accept multiple sealings ourselves to be exalted but denigrating our fore bearers for obeying God won't win us any points. I've heard too many "good Saints" badmouthing what their ancestors did to obey God. I suspect they will be in for a rude awakening before being welcomed back into the family fold beyond the veil.I'm pretty sure there are a goodly number of TBMs that would disagree with this. If plurality of wives is THE higher law of the celestial kingdom how could one avoid accepting it?"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."Joseph F. Smith (Prophet, Seer and Revelator)JD 20:28 Edited July 21, 2012 by Palerider
ERayR Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) I'm pretty sure there are a goodly number of TBMs that would disagree with this. If The plurality of wives is THE higher law one of the forms of marriage in of the celestial kingdom how could one avoid accepting it?I think that is more accurate. Edited July 21, 2012 by ERayR 2
KevinG Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) I'm pretty sure there are a goodly number of TBMs that would disagree with this. If plurality of wives is THE higher law of the celestial kingdom how could one avoid accepting it?"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."Joseph F. Smith (Prophet, Seer and Revelator)JD 20:28Substitute the word accept with practice and you will get my intent more clearly. We will all need to accept the doctrines not all of us will practice them. Brigham told the Saints of his time practicing that law that they must accept it "at least in spirit". Edited July 21, 2012 by KevinG
Evangeline Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 I'm pretty sure there are a goodly number of TBMs that would disagree with this. If plurality of wives is THE higher law of the celestial kingdom how could one avoid accepting it?"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false."Joseph F. Smith (Prophet, Seer and Revelator)JD 20:28And yet, we have this:From the D&C seminary manual section 132:Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.Joseph F. Smith was no doubt a "prophet, seer and revelator," but the Journal of Discourses is not considered authoritative church doctrine and I'm quite happy to follow the directions of our current church leaders.
Palerider Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) And yet, we have this:Joseph F. Smith was no doubt a "prophet, seer and revelator," but the Journal of Discourses is not considered authoritative church doctrine and I'm quite happy to follow the directions of our current church leaders.And yet again from D&C 132:Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. ...if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood ...Then shall they be gods, because they have no end ...to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. ...God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. ...As you well know the "standard works" trump an institute manual footnote.Reading 132, the revelation on plural marriage, I can't imagine why " Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom."Hmmmmmm.......... Edited July 21, 2012 by Palerider
Palerider Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 I think that is more accurate.I disagree. Please see post to Evangeline.
Evangeline Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 And yet again from D&C 132:Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. ...if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood ...Then shall they be gods, because they have no end ...to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. ...God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. ...As you well know the "standard works" trump an institute manual footnote.Reading 132, the revelation on plural marriage, I can't imagine why " Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom."Hmmmmmm..........As ERayR said earlier in this thread and several others implied (everlasting is bolded because I did a search for it):I don't know if this will help but the new and everlasting covenant of marriage is being married and sealed for all eternity. Polygamycan (but is not necessary) be practiced within this covenant. When polygamy is added then all wives are in and everlasting and eternal marriage with one man. When polygamy is not involved it is one man and one woman.
ERayR Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 And yet again from D&C 132:Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. ...if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood ...Then shall they be gods, because they have no end ...to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. ...God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. ...As you well know the "standard works" trump an institute manual footnote.Reading 132, the revelation on plural marriage, I can't imagine why " Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom."Hmmmmmm..........What is between the ellipses makes all the difference. Polygamy is not the new and an everlasting covenant but may be part of it. Somehow I am sure you knew that.
Evangeline Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Somehow I am sure you knew that.Especially after a careful reading of this thread.
sweetpotatoh Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Let me ask you educated folks a question...make this a real thread rather than a throw cwald under the bus....what pecentage of the LDS membership do you figure, of the actual active LDS members know the DETAILS of JOSEPH SMITH's poligamy. Let alone his polyandry?My mother told me about his polygamy when I was growing up. It was part if my education in the gospel that my mother felt was important enough to tech me and my sisters about. I grew up in Provo. The tbm capital of world. I find it hard to believe that one growing up in the church never studied all of the scriptures. We are asked to do so every general conference and must about everySunday. Was not family scripture study part of your routine. You have no one but yourself to blame. Rather then blame the church ta ke responsibility for the fact that you weren't all that strong in the church, demonstrated by your lack of study, and realize You have no one to blame but yourself.
ERayR Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Let me ask you educated folks a question...make this a real thread rather than a throw cwald under the bus....what pecentage of the LDS membership do you figure, of the actual active LDS members know the DETAILS of JOSEPH SMITH's poligamy. Let alone his polyandry?I think I answered this before. My answer however is What difference does it make? It is totally irrelevant in today's church.
Garden Girl Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) And yet again from D&C 132:Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. ...if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood ...Then shall they be gods, because they have no end ...*** Hello Palerider... IMO you are misinterpreting the scriptures... I interpret this to mean that a man must obey the law of the priesthood to marry by the word or law of God which is to marry and be sealed by someone who is set apart with authority and keys to perform such a marriage, otherwise the marriage/sealing is of no effect and they will be as angels...to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law. ...*** IMO the law is to be married/sealed by someone given keys to do so...God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises. ...*** IMO this is a separate part of the law... and describes how God commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. It asks if Abraham was under condemnation for doing so...the answer is then given... "Nay, for I, the Lord, commanded it." It then gives the example of Abraham being commanded to kill Isaac even though the law says "Thou shalt not kill." You have to read the entire passages to note the difference. Because Abraham obeyed God's command to take Hagar to wife it was counted as righteousness because God commanded it (an exception?)... further, Abraham was given concubines that bore him children and it was counted as righteousness because they were given to him. And Isaac and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded and because of this they entered into their exaltation. In other words, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob followed and obeyed God's commands to them. IMO plural wives are required only if God commands because those of us married and sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise are to do none else but what God commands.GG Edited July 21, 2012 by Garden Girl 1
Recommended Posts