On Polgamy, Polyandry, And Other Things We Don'T Like

[Glenn101]

The other thread on polyandry was closed due to some unallowed sexual speculation. I just wanted to add my second two cent's worth on the topic. I hope I don't get anyone into an uproar on this, but I do believe that most of our reactions to the polygamy and so-called polyandry are really emotion based rather than logic based.

The early reactions to polygamy were evidently so, even by Brigham Young.

"Some of these my brethern know what my feelings were at the time Joseph revealed the doctrine; I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin, knowing the toil and labor that my body would have to undergo; and I have had to examine myself, from that day to this, and watch my faith, and carefully meditate, lest I should be found desiring the grave more than I ought to do." (Brigham Young - American Moses, Leonard J. Arrington, Page 100)

Yet, in spite of all of those misgivings, Brigham had a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet and he followed Joseph's counsel on the matter.

"I am a witness that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. . . . He was a man of God and had the revelations of Jesus Christ, and the words of Jesus Christ to the people. He did build and establish the kingdom of God on earth, and through him the Lord Almighty again restored the priesthood to the children of men. . . .

"I am a witness of this; and all who will hear the voice of the servants of God, pay attention to what they say and obey the commandments given to the people, shall receive a testimony and know that we tell them the truth, that Joseph is a prophet of God, and did actually finish the work which the Lord gave him to do, sealed his testimony with his blood, and has gone to dwell in the world of spirits." (Deseret News, Feb. 27, 1856, 403)

The same type of reaction is still common from much of Christendom, even though there is little in the Bible to mandate such a reaction, and much to legislate for the practice, about 85 percent of the world governments evidently see little wrong with polygamy. Such would also seem to be the reaction to Joseph's perceived polyandry. It is emotional rather than logical. "Why, that is a horrible, terrible thing, Joseph being sealed to women who were alrady married, civilly, to other men."

Yet there is no revealed prohibition against this. It does not really fit the definition of polyandry because he married none of those womemn civilly, nor lived with them as man and wife. None of the women, as far as I know, were sealed to the men they were married to civilly.

So, maybe we need to abandon some of our prejuduces and return to the really pertinent question. And, to me, that answer is the same as the one Brigham Young articulated in 1856. If I pray long and hard about it, I may never get an answer about whether Joseph was correct in being sealed to the wives of other men. It just may not be any of my business. And that last may be something that we do not want to hear.

There may be other things about the gospel that we don't like, but we need to examine ourselves before we jump up and down yelling "I don't like that", and determine if our objections are based upon logic rather than emotionalism and upon revelation as opposed to paragidms.

Now, if someone wishes to dispute anything I have said, try to do so with facts and logic rather than emotion.

Glenn

Edited January 20, 2013 by Glenn101

[CV75]

"I am a witness that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. . . . He was a man of God and had the revelations of Jesus Christ, and the words of Jesus Christ to the people. He did build and establish the kingdom of God on earth, and through him the Lord Almighty again restored the priesthood to the children of men. . . .

"I am a witness of this; and all who will hear the voice of the servants of God, pay attention to what they say and obey the commandments given to the people, shall receive a testimony and know that we tell them the truth, that Joseph is a prophet of God, and did actually finish the work which the Lord gave him to do, sealed his testimony with his blood, and has gone to dwell in the world of spirits." (Deseret News, Feb. 27, 1856, 403)

I agree--all for whom the restored gospel is important have to at some point to come to the personal conclusion that he/she benefits from the keys that have been restored (or not). For thsoe who have concluded that there are no restored or active keys in the first place must do so on a basis other than the misuse or offensive use of those keys by others (real or imagined).

[Jude2]

Okay I'll re-post my thoughts;

I know the answer, at least I think I do.

Take Mary Lighter she married a non member who refused to join the Church so she remained unsealed to a priesthood holder.

On April 28th 1842 Eliza recorded in her min. of the RS;

"he (Joseph) spoke of delivering the keys of the priesthood to the church, and said that faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them in connection with their husbands…"

When a couple are sealed they become one and his priesthood becomes theirs. If you look at the timing Joseph started sealing these women to himself as he started to prepare for the temple ceremony. I believe he needed trusted women to sew the temple veil, garments and perform the ceremonies. Once Mary was sealed to Joseph then she could function in that capacity. There were other married women like Marinda Hyde whose husband Orson was out of the country on a mission and apparently had not been sealed as yet (Maybe someone could look that up). Joseph seals her to himself and then she became one of those who could help the work of the temple move forward. Nothing would stop her from later being sealed to her husband when he returned.

It was also a test one which Sarah Pratt failed. The women who passed the test were brought into what Lisle G Brown calls the Holy Order. There is some question as to whether his conclusions are right on this order and I like to know what others think about it.

http://www.lds-mormo.../holyordr.shtml

[cesc101]

the early saints were millenialist who believed they could hasten the 2nd coming of Christ thru righteous living, (& don't forget; this will happen once JS turned 85?) in such condition, who wouldn't want to get prepared? - even if it means getting sealed as a servant, so long as its an "endowment"

[changed]

I am sorry for closing the thread - although, in my defense, similar speculations have been published by Mormon.org... and originally stemmed by following the council of Patricia Holland:

"We have all recognized the relationship between Abraham and Isaac that so parallels God’s anguish over the sacrifice of his son, Jesus Christ. But, as women, do we stretch ourselves and also ask about Sarah’s travail in this experience as well? We need to search in this manner, and we need always to look for deeper meaning." - link

what the powers that be allowed Mormon.org to publish - link (scroll down)

Do Mormons practice polygamy?

Jamie answered...

Mormons do not currently practice polygamy, but many still wonder why polygamy was practiced in the past by individuals such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph Smith. The scriptures teach us that this practice was instituted in order to “raise up seed” (Jacob 2:30). In the early church polygamy was referred to as the “law of Sarah” (DC 132:65) because Sarah is the first example we have of the principle. Sarah and Abraham were both called upon to make great sacrifices. Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac even though human sacrifice is considered a horrific pagan act (see Jeremiah 32:35). Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son is an incredible example of faith that helps us understand the atonement. Like Abraham, Sarah was also tested and asked to sacrifice. Sarah, and several other barren women in the scriptures, offered handmaids to their husbands so that the promised blessings of posterity as the “stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore” could be fulfilled. We know what Abraham’s sacrifice represented, but what did Sarah and the other women’s sacrifice represent? When pondering upon the handmaidens within the scriptures, my mind is drawn to the most celebrated handmaid who is Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. "And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord" - Luke 1:38 When contemplating on the blessed virgin birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we might find some of the answers as to what Sarah’s sacrifice was in similitude of.

I apologize for being too direct in my comments earlier, and will try to be more gentle with my replies in the future.

Edited January 20, 2013 by changed

[canard78]

I apologize for being too direct in my comments earlier, and will try to be more gentle with my replies in the future.

Don't worry, it wasn't only you. I'd done the same so apologise for my contribution.

I think polyandry is an interesting topic so would welcome keeping this going while abiding by the rules.

Rockpond in case you read this, I wanted to reply to you but the thread was locked. Fair comment, Palmer has done a lot of work that will hopefully drive better research in response (as Brodie did 50 years ago). I think some of his writing, eg the Laws article in the John Whitmer journal, makes some simplistic assumptions or uses sources like Jo Jackson without acknowledging that JJ's a very unreliable source. JJ's biography reads more like a Mills & Boon novel. Quite an entertaining read, but limited use as an historical source.

But I appreciate the gentle and reasonable chiding and will bear it in mind.

[Tacenda]

The reasons for Brigham's & Joseph's polygamy could be because they believed they would be Gods one day and they needed that many Goddesses to procreate. What other reason for it? Polyandry may have been ok with some of Joseph's wives because they would later all be together as families. Maybe the desires of some of their husbands, was to be adopted into their wives families because they would be with their beloved prophet, Joseph. I think the belief that the world was ending caused everything to go in speed mode too. But I told myself I wouldn't post because it inevitably get's me in trouble. But hoping that by posting these thoughts that it will settle some unanswered thoughts or questions about it. Has anyone run across current leaders thoughts on polyandry/polygamy? If one believes polygamy/polyandry were wrong are they going to be shot down for it on the board? Pres. Hinckley has even said it isn't doctrinal in an interview once.

Edited January 20, 2013 by Tacenda

[changed]

Thanks Canard, it is an interesting topic, but also a very sacred and sensitive one.

I know a lot of people like to concentrate on the women involved, justifying polygamy as being the gateway through which these women could enjoy the blessings of being sealed to a spouse, but I like to take another approach, and instead concentrate on the children involved, and the examples we have from the old testament.

The only reason that was ever give for polygamy is given here:

Jacob 2:30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

That this practice was instituted for the sake of creating children. Why would it take more than one mother to raise up seed? Before I suggest my thoughts on this, I want to make clear to anyone reading this that it is not the doctrine of the church, that these are only my thoughts, but that I have tried to base these thoughts on scriptures... so please do not judge the church based on what I say (this is all that I mean when I say "speculation" I just want to distance myself from the church so that I do not misrepresent anything or start any unfounded rumors about what the church thinks - this is only what I think, and I want that to be perfectly clear)... So, what I think...

Consider that we have two births, one birth to our natural parents here on earth, and then a second birth where we become covenant children to our Heavenly Parents. The ideal situation for children is that they are raised by two sets of parents - an earthly set, and a Heavenly Set. Our earthly parents care for us in our infancy, when we are not yet old enough to be accountable, when we do not have a full understanding to fully use our agency - before we can make an informed choice, because we are not yet fully informed on everything. We say we chose to come here to Earth, but was it really an informed choice? we had not experienced what it was to have a body, we did not really know what we were getting ourselves into, we knew the idea of it, the thought of it, but we had never actually experienced it, so it was not an informed choice... it's a sin, or at least a transgression, to go against someone's agency. Eve was unable, or at least unwilling, to bear children in her perfect form. She would not have been able to have children in Eden, it seems only fallen beings can provide the first birth, and perhaps this is because we are getting those precious little spirits into something they were unable to really understand... Our first birth is necessary, but it is not God's birth, it is not a perfect birth. Our baptism is a more perfect birth, one done with accountability, with agency, with knowledge and experience. ... so I see all of us as needing two separate births, having two separate sets of parents - parents on earth, and parents in Heaven, and in the ideal case, having a very intimate and close relationship between all parties involved.

The law of Sarah - 132:65. Abraham was asked to make the ultimate sacrifice, and then, at the last minute, a ram was provided instead.

Genesis 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

A ram was offered by Abraham, but no in the case of our Heavenly Parents, They actually had to go through with the ultimate sacrifice. Like Abraham, Sarah was also asked to make a sacrifice, she knew what it was to be barren, what it was to have to rely on a handmaid, but like Abraham, at the last minute, she did not have to make the ultimate sacrifice. In her old age, she was able to bear a son. In the case of our Heavenly Parents though, we know Jesus is Their "only" begotten, Their only one - and he was begotten, not by our Heavenly Mother, but by a handmaid.

There is a pattern in the OT of barren righteous women, what do they symbolize?

Gen. 11:30 Sarai was barren. ;

Gen. 29:31 Rachel was barren.;

Judg. 13:3 thou art barren;

1 Sam. 1:2 Hannah had no children;

Luke 1:7 they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren;

Why was Jesus baptized? Why did he need a second birth? It was not to remove sin, he was already the literal child of Heavenly Father, perhaps one of the reasons was to become a child of his Mother in Heaven. An interesting thing, the voice from heaven who introduces Jesus is never identified as being the voice of Heavenly Father -

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

Everyone assumes that it is Heavenly Father speaking here, but perhaps it was his Mother who was rejoicing, perhaps baptism is how She gains children. What joy must fill our Heavenly Parent's hearts when we are baptized.

Ps. 113:9 barren woman ... to be a joyful mother

Isa. 54:1 Sing, O barren thou that didst not bear;

Luke 23:29 Blessed are the barren;

Gal. 4:27 Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not;

D&C 133:29 in the barren deserts there shall come forth pools;

Moses 7:8 barren thereof shall go forth;

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

(New Testament | Galatians 4:28 - 31)

[halconero]

This question was once raised to a visiting general authority while I was serving a mission.

Interestingly enough this GA had lost his wife quite young and had to raise their child by himself, who was still barely more than a baby.

After a while without dating he had a vision in which his wife expressed the desire that he have a helpmeet while on the earth, that their child have a mother, and that she have a sister with whom she could rejoice and grow in eternal glory.

He eventually remarried and a little after his wife had vision in which his first spouse expressed her love, thankfulness, and joy that she would be with them in the celestial kingdom.

The GA then said this to us, "if we believe something can be pure, holy, joyful and ordained of God in heaven, how dare we think that it can't be on earth?"

[Tacenda]

This question was once raised to a visiting general authority while I was serving a mission.

Interestingly enough this GA had lost his wife quite young and had to raise their child by himself, who was still barely more than a baby.

After a while without dating he had a vision in which his wife expressed the desire that he have a helpmeet while on the earth, that their child have a mother, and that she have a sister with whom she could rejoice and grow in eternal glory.

He eventually remarried and a little after his wife had vision in which his first spouse expressed her love, thankfulness, and joy that she would be with them in the celestial kingdom.

The GA then said this to us, "if we believe something can be pure, holy, joyful and ordained of God in heaven, how dare we think that it can't be on earth?"

This is good, thanks!

[savedbygrace]

I started the thread, and have come to the conclusion that members on this forum are as confused by it as I am, so I'm happy to leave it there except to say that nothing I have read on here convinces me that it was ever justified.

[Glenn101]

This question was once raised to a visiting general authority while I was serving a mission.

Interestingly enough this GA had lost his wife quite young and had to raise their child by himself, who was still barely more than a baby.

After a while without dating he had a vision in which his wife expressed the desire that he have a helpmeet while on the earth, that their child have a mother, and that she have a sister with whom she could rejoice and grow in eternal glory.

He eventually remarried and a little after his wife had vision in which his first spouse expressed her love, thankfulness, and joy that she would be with them in the celestial kingdom.

The GA then said this to us, "if we believe something can be pure, holy, joyful and ordained of God in heaven, how dare we think that it can't be on earth?"

I found myself in much the same situation almost twenty-two years ago. But instead of one infant, I had four children, one with special needs. I felt guilty at first when I was urged to remarry, but the Lord sent me to a lady who had been raising her children alone for ten years and was at the end of her rope. I don't know how that will work out in eternity. But the Lord will handle that.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

I started the thread, and have come to the conclusion that members on this forum are as confused by it as I am, so I'm happy to leave it there except to say that nothing I have read on here convinces me that it was ever justified.

You do not accept the words of Joseph Smith as a prophet that he was commanded in this thing? Can you cite some evidence, some scripture, some utterance from a prophet to shore up that opinion?

Thanks,

Glenn

[canard78]

You do not accept the words of Joseph Smith as a prophet that he was commanded in this thing? Can you cite some evidence, some scripture, some utterance from a prophet to shore up that opinion?

Thanks,

Glenn

I might be wrong but I think SBG might not be LDS so this is probably a no to your first question.

To your second, I know of no other case that a prophet has married a woman who already has a living husband. So why would any other prophet have bothered to ask god the question, let alone put something in writing about it.

Is there a written statement by even Joseph Smith on the issue of marrying another man's wife (whether received as revelation or not). I don't think one exists. I'm happy to be shown otherwise.

Edited January 20, 2013 by canard78

[Questing Beast]

...

Now, if someone wishes to dispute anything I have said, try to do so with facts and logic rather than emotion.

Glenn

I am very dispassionate about Joseph Smith. And Brigham Young. I have to be. Anger would indicate that I am not being rational which would call into question my understanding about what their examples imply.

Evidently Brigham Young was too heavily invested in "the prophet of the Lord" to back out when he was asked to engage in patriarchal marriage. Also evidently if Young found out about Joseph Smith's polyandry it was through the usual "Mormon grapevine" and not because Joseph Smith shared that aspect with him. Brigham Young did not engage in marriage relations with the wives of other men like Joseph Smith did. He sent Henry Jacobs on a mission and then moved Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young into his household openly, telling Jacobs to find another woman if he could or would.

In the case of marrying Zina Huntington, Joseph Smith first lost out to Henry Jacobs, then later used the "angel with a drawn sword" story to coerce Zina into entering "celestial marriage".

It is obvious from Zina's words and her later conduct, openly living as Brigham Young's wife (beginning while Henry Jacobs was on that mission), that "celestial marriage" was not a word contract only, but included living as husband and wife; otherwise Zina would not have felt that "...I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved. ... I never breathed it for year." When compared to the numerous other testimonies of former plural wives of Joseph Smith, and the sound anecdotal witnesses surrounding Joseph Smith who observed his behavior, it is obvious that his marriages to those plural wives included carnal relations. The evidence is too strong to allow for "celestial marriage" only as what Joseph Smith did.

Now we can assume as Henry Jacobs did that “whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." But I cannot do that. To me sexual immorality has a rather hard line defining where it begins: and polyandry is crossing that line. For that matter, inasmuch as Joseph Smith's conduct subsequently calls into question the entire concept of "patriarchal marriage", I have disavowed any earlier belief I held in polygyny as well. It is a man-made concept to allow men to "pollinate" and obtain conquests and build up their clan through acquisition. Giving it all a religious color does not change this to my mind....

[savedbygrace]

Glenn100 I do not accept JS as a prophet at all, Canard 78 is right

[canard78]

I am very dispassionate about Joseph Smith. And Brigham Young. I have to be. Anger would indicate that I am not being rational which would call into question my understanding about what their examples imply.

Evidently Brigham Young was too heavily invested in "the prophet of the Lord" to back out when he was asked to engage in patriarchal marriage. Also evidently if Young found out about Joseph Smith's polyandry it was through the usual "Mormon grapevine" and not because Joseph Smith shared that aspect with him. Brigham Young did not engage in marriage relations with the wives of other men like Joseph Smith did. He sent Henry Jacobs on a mission and then moved Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young into his household openly, telling Jacobs to find another woman if he could or would.

In the case of marrying Zina Huntington, Joseph Smith first lost out to Henry Jacobs, then later used the "angel with a drawn sword" story to coerce Zina into entering "celestial marriage".

It is obvious from Zina's words and her later conduct, openly living as Brigham Young's wife (beginning while Henry Jacobs was on that mission), that "celestial marriage" was not a word contract only, but included living as husband and wife; otherwise Zina would not have felt that "...I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved. ... I never breathed it for year." When compared to the numerous other testimonies of former plural wives of Joseph Smith, and the sound anecdotal witnesses surrounding Joseph Smith who observed his behavior, it is obvious that his marriages to those plural wives included carnal relations. The evidence is too strong to allow for "celestial marriage" only as what Joseph Smith did.

Now we can assume as Henry Jacobs did that “whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." But I cannot do that. To me sexual immorality has a rather hard line defining where it begins: and polyandry is crossing that line. For that matter, inasmuch as Joseph Smith's conduct subsequently calls into question the entire concept of "patriarchal marriage", I have disavowed any earlier belief I held in polygyny as well. It is a man-made concept to allow men to "pollinate" and obtain conquests and build up their clan through acquisition. Giving it all a religious color does not change this to my mind....

Questing Beast, I don't want to sound like a nanny... But the last thread was closed for making the conversation about 'carnal' speculation (as you put it).

It would be a shame to get this thread locked too. If you don't mind, can we keep the discussion out of the bedroom?

[canard78]

Glenn100 I do not accept JS as a prophet at all, Canard 78 is right

Thanks for the candour... It does make it a difficult place to have the conversation from.

If I didn't think Abraham was a prophet then I wouldn't see any justification for some of his actions: he planned to stab his son on an altar and left his other one to die in the dessert with his concubine.

If we knew Joseph had done the same people would be up in arms.

I think there is little 'rational, social, practical' reason for polygamy/polyandry (even though we try to come up with them - like 'welfare system'). They are, in my opinion, either spiritual and eternal (or were at least believed at the time to be) or are unpleasant distortions of positions of authority.

[DavidB]

As with all thing things governing human relations emotion rules.

Logic would dictate let one love who they love and let those in love be joined together with that relationship recognized by the state.

Edited January 20, 2013 by DavidB

[Glenn101]

I am very dispassionate about Joseph Smith. And Brigham Young. I have to be. Anger would indicate that I am not being rational which would call into question my understanding about what their examples imply.

Evidently Brigham Young was too heavily invested in "the prophet of the Lord" to back out when he was asked to engage in patriarchal marriage. Also evidently if Young found out about Joseph Smith's polyandry it was through the usual "Mormon grapevine" and not because Joseph Smith shared that aspect with him. Brigham Young did not engage in marriage relations with the wives of other men like Joseph Smith did. He sent Henry Jacobs on a mission and then moved Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young into his household openly, telling Jacobs to find another woman if he could or would.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QB, it is fine to state your dispassion concerning Joseph and Brigham. However, when making your points, it would be helpful if you would provide some references. Such as, you could have noted that Jacobs was present at the ceremony where Zina was sealed to Brigham Young. ( Lyndon W. Cook, Nauvoo Marriages Proxy Sealings 1843-1846 Provo, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 2004). You also might have mentioned that the statement by William Hall in The Abominations of Mormonism Exposed (Cincinnati, Ohio: I. Hart and Company, 1852) is uncorroborated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case of marrying Zina Huntington, Joseph Smith first lost out to Henry Jacobs, then later used the "angel with a drawn sword" story to coerce Zina into entering "celestial marriage".

It is obvious from Zina's words and her later conduct, openly living as Brigham Young's wife (beginning while Henry Jacobs was on that mission), that "celestial marriage" was not a word contract only, but included living as husband and wife; otherwise Zina would not have felt that "...I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved. ... I never breathed it for year." When compared to the numerous other testimonies of former plural wives of Joseph Smith, and the sound anecdotal witnesses surrounding Joseph Smith who observed his behavior, it is obvious that his marriages to those plural wives included carnal relations. The evidence is too strong to allow for "celestial marriage" only as what Joseph Smith did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here you are quoting only a portion of Zina's comment. Let's put a little more in for context. "When I heard that God had revealed the law of celestial marriag...I obtained a testimony for myself that God had required that order to be established in this church...I made a greater sacrifise than to give my life for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honerable woman by those I dearly loved...It was something too sacred to be talked about; it was more to me than life or death. I never breathed it for years”.

The carnal relations speculation is something that got the other thread locked, so I will not discuss it. But I disagree with you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we can assume as Henry Jacobs did that “whatever the Prophet did was right, without making the wisdom of God’s authorities bend to the reasoning of any man." But I cannot do that. To me sexual immorality has a rather hard line defining where it begins: and polyandry is crossing that line. For that matter, inasmuch as Joseph Smith's conduct subsequently calls into question the entire concept of "patriarchal marriage", I have disavowed any earlier belief I held in polygyny as well. It is a man-made concept to allow men to "pollinate" and obtain conquests and build up their clan through acquisition. Giving it all a religious color does not change this to my mind....

Thanks for stating your position succintly. Again, I disagree that it is a man-made concept.

Glenn

[savedbygrace]

Abraham was justified by his faith in God who had promised him that he would be the father of many, so even though as much as a friend of God as he was he was tested, and as we read in Hebrews he believed that Isaac could be brought back from the dead because of the promise. And similarly Ishmael was to be the father of many, also a promise, so he had faith that he would not die in the desert, so his actions were justified because he belived in God's covenant. So there was a plan to this, and it is clear in Sacred Scripture. However, no-one on these boards can explain what the plan was that led to the practice of polyandry.

[DavidB]

Abraham was justified by his faith in God who had promised him that he would be the father of many, so even though as much as a friend of God as he was he was tested, and as we read in Hebrews he believed that Isaac could be brought back from the dead because of the promise. And similarly Ishmael was to be the father of many, also a promise, so he had faith that he would not die in the desert, so his actions were justified because he belived in God's covenant. So there was a plan to this, and it is clear in Sacred Scripture. However, no-one on these boards can explain what the plan was that led to the practice of polyandry

What constitutes a plan?

Have you read Doctrine and Covenants 132?

By way of comparison to LDS polygamy, can you show the Biblical verses that show the "plan"?

[canard78]

Abraham was justified by his faith in God who had promised him that he would be the father of many, so even though as much as a friend of God as he was he was tested, and as we read in Hebrews he believed that Isaac could be brought back from the dead because of the promise. And similarly Ishmael was to be the father of many, also a promise, so he had faith that he would not die in the desert, so his actions were justified because he belived in God's covenant. So there was a plan to this, and it is clear in Sacred Scripture. However, no-one on these boards can explain what the plan was that led to the practice of polyandry.

Your explanations are all fine for Abraham, but all dependent on believing he was a prophet. Otherwise it's just post-event rationalisation. I also wonder if those reasons were announced by Abraham or added later as an (inspired) addition once someone else saw the bigger picture?

There have been some reasons suggested (celestial sealing of extended family/friends, dynasties, spiritual ties for the Nauvoo network). The reality is we don't have the information to answer your question conclusively. Not on polyandry anyway. So the answer to what purpose was served by polyandry... We don't know. Sorry. I would love to know too. It's one of the questions I intend to ask when I get to the other side.

But it's not one of the 'make or break' deals on the church's truth claims for me. I don't 'have to' have an answer to this one to be happy staying.

[changed]

... nothing I have read on here convinces me that it was ever justified.

What are your feelings about those in the Old testament who practiced it? Do you believe they were justified?

Whoops, just read your reply.

Abraham was justified by his faith in God who had promised him that he would be the father of many, so even though as much as a friend of God as he was he was tested, and as we read in Hebrews he believed that Isaac could be brought back from the dead because of the promise. And similarly Ishmael was to be the father of many, also a promise, so he had faith that he would not die in the desert, so his actions were justified because he belived in God's covenant. So there was a plan to this, and it is clear in Sacred Scripture. However, no-one on these boards can explain what the plan was that led to the practice of polyandry.

Here is another question for you - why did God make Sarah barren in your opinion? What were they supposed to learn from that?

Edited January 20, 2013 by changed

[savedbygrace]

Thanks Canard. But in reference to DavidB's comments I am refering to Abrahams part in the Plan of Salvation. Gen 22 18 clearly states that in his seed all nations shall be blessed because he obeyed God, that is a reference to Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the great blessing He has brought about by the shedding of his precious blood for all mankind so that they may be reconciled to God. That is the Plan, I'm surprised that the Plan of Salvation has to be defined, this is Salvation history.