Wrestling With Polyandry

[canard78]

Seems we are wrestling more than with just "polyandry" right now.

Glenn

Maybe that solves the issue. 50:50 male female ratio. Everyone will be married to at least 2 people. Celestial wife/husband swapping.

[Calm]

We also know that polygamy wasn't just allowed, but commanded.

Even Brigham Young taught it was just acceptance of plural marriage as a doctrine that was required, not personal living of it:

http://en.fairmormon..._for_exaltation

It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world, that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained.

http://en.fairmormon...actice_polygamy

The above quote is from the same source as the one omni is using, one wonders why he neglected to include this part.

Edited June 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

Okay, since there seems to be some confusion on why polygamy doesn't work on even a practical manner let me explain. We know that a temple marriage is required in order to be exalted. This from LDS.org:

We also know that polygamy wasn't just allowed, but commanded.

I don't have the exact numbers, but to make the math easy let's say there were 10,000 eligible (worthy LDS members) women and 10,000 eligible men. If half (5,000) of the men did what they were commanded to do and married the bare minimum of two women, then all of the eligible women would then be married leaving 5,000 men unable to be sealed, and therefore unable to reach exaltation.

Now it's been suggested by a few on here that perhaps HF will create more female spirits in order to correct this imbalance allowing those men whoso choose to be polygamists. First of all I would kindly request a CFR, second of all as Canard alluded to that's just offensive to women. Not only that, but it still denies the blessings of marriage to those men in this life. Why would HF create a commandment required for exaltation that he knows would be numerically impossible for most men to keep?

Your assumptions are still invalid

[omni]

Even Brigham Young taught it was just acceptance of plural marriage as a doctrine that was required, not personal living of it:

http://en.fairmormon..._for_exaltation

http://en.fairmormon...actice_polygamy

The above quote is from the same source as the one omni is using, one wonders why he neglected to include this part.

So which Brigham do you believe? The apostle Reed Smoot seemed to agree with me:

In 1891 the First Presidency and Apostles of the Mormon Church made the following statement in a petition to the President of the United States: "We formerly taught to our people that polygamy or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come." (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 1, page 18)

So did Joseph Smith:

"The same God that has thus far dictated me and directed me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on celestial and plural marriage, and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accepted it, and introduced it, and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction."

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Contributor, Vol. 5, p. 259

And so did Joseph F Smith:

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by 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 wish here, to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it to be false

I could keep going, but I think you get the point.

[Sleeper Cell]

If this the sort of mental contortion needed to make polygamy work in the eternities then I for one reach a far more simple conclusion.

The notion that extra females have been created and reserved for the millennium to act as some distorted 'wife farm' for every righteous man who "desires to do so" is a little unusual.

Maybe we should add it to Preach my Gospel and see how it goes down.

I don't have the exact numbers, but to make the math easy let's say there were 10,000 eligible (worthy LDS members) women and 10,000 eligible men. If half (5,000) of the men did what they were commanded to do and married the bare minimum of two women, then all of the eligible women would then be married leaving 5,000 men unable to be sealed, and therefore unable to reach exaltation.

Now it's been suggested by a few on here that perhaps HF will create more female spirits in order to correct this imbalance allowing those men whoso choose to be polygamists. First of all I would kindly request a CFR, second of all as Canard alluded to that's just offensive to women. Not only that, but it still denies the blessings of marriage to those men in this life. Why would HF create a commandment required for exaltation that he knows would be numerically impossible for most men to keep?

Sigh.

1. First, the CFR.

I provided my "references" in my post. I will bold my previous statement of supporting evidence for your convenience:

I predict (without the slightest bit of scriptural support or other evidence, of course) that …

2. Second, the “Just offensive to women” assertion

Perhaps that is why I added my concluding paragraph (which Canard did not quote in his response):

I also predict that in the “pre-Adamites?“ thread, someone will cite my last comment as proof positive of the survival of a significant amount of pre-Adamite DNA -- at least in one male genetic line.

For Pete’s sake, why would I have called myself a “knuckle dragging Neanderthal,” if I intended my “just offensive to women” comment to be taken seriously?

I thought it was obvious that I was using self-deprecating humor to poke a little fun at myself and my millennial speculations.

　

I will respond directly to your mathematical proof without further attempts at humor.

The problem with your proof is that it is based on assumptions which are not necessarily true. For example:

1. You assume that the male-female birth ratio will not change in the future.

2. You assume that the male-female ratio of the pre-mortal “righteous two-thirds” was

roughly 50 -50.

Neither of us knows if these assumptions are correct.

You cannot compare the 19^th century LDS community to the 21^st century FLDS community because, among other things, the LDS community enjoyed a steady influx of immigrant converts while the FLDS apparently does not. Furthermore, if your mathematical proof is really applicable to the 19^th century LDS community, where is the evidence of FLDS-style large scale expulsions of young men or evidence of an unusually large number of worthy young men who were not able to find wives?

Using mathematical proofs to formulate theories is fine. But at some point, you must show that your theory is consistent with the real world.

As far as polygamy in the eternities, your proof breaks down on strictly mathematical grounds. It assumes a finite population. It is not applicable to an infinite population.

[canard78]

Sigh.

1. First, the CFR.

I provided my "references" in my post. I will bold my previous statement of supporting evidence for your convenience:

2. Second, the “Just offensive to women” assertion

Perhaps that is why I added my concluding paragraph (which Canard did not quote in his response):

For Pete’s sake, why would I have called myself a “knuckle dragging Neanderthal,” if I intended my “just offensive to women” comment to be taken seriously?

I thought it was obvious that I was using self-deprecating humor to poke a little fun at myself and my millennial speculations.

I will respond directly to your mathematical proof without further attempts at humor.

The problem with your proof is that it is based on assumptions which are not necessarily true. For example:

1. You assume that the male-female birth ratio will not change in the future.

2. You assume that the male-female ratio of the pre-mortal “righteous two-thirds” was

roughly 50 -50.

Neither of us knows if these assumptions are correct.

You cannot compare the 19^th century LDS community to the 21^st century FLDS community because, among other things, the LDS community enjoyed a steady influx of immigrant converts while the FLDS apparently does not. Furthermore, if your mathematical proof is really applicable to the 19^th century LDS community, where is the evidence of FLDS-style large scale expulsions of young men or evidence of an unusually large number of worthy young men who were not able to find wives?

Using mathematical proofs to formulate theories is fine. But at some point, you must show that your theory is consistent with the real world.

As far as polygamy in the eternities, your proof breaks down on strictly mathematical grounds. It assumes a finite population. It is not applicable to an infinite population.

I've not raised the 19thC/FLDS question. But given the scale of polygamy was much smaller among Utah LDS it's probably not comparable.

My point is that in order for polygamy to work logically in the eternities we have to go to almost ridiculous length of non-doctrinal mental contortion to make it work. Like there being more female spirits or more males in the third in preparation for polygamy.

By the way the 'third theory doesn't even work if 75% of the 'fallen third' are male.

50 M

50 F

33 fall (24 M / 9 F)

26 M needing 52 F to make polygamy work. But only 41 are left.

ETA: I snipped your DNA comment as I had no idea what relevance it had and wasn't following the other thread.

Edited June 15, 2013 by canard78

[Hamba Tuhan]

I've not raised the 19thC/FLDS question. But given the scale of polygamy was much smaller among Utah LDS it's probably not comparable.

I haven't been following this thread at all (because, frankly, I just can't force myself to get worked up about polyandry), but I saw this reply and thought I'd chime in. When I was doing my undergraduate study in America, I took many Institute classes from Kenneth Godfrey. In one of them, he mentioned to us that Church records (he did his PhD research in this field) indicate that fully 1/3 of adult males in the Church never married during the decades that plural marriage was practised. This was, he suggested, the very specific context for Heber C. Kimball's oft-(mis)quoted concern about unmarried men. One of the solutions to this sociological time bomb seems to have been to send large numbers of single men on missions for very long periods of time.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[canard78]

I haven't been following this thread at all (because, frankly, I just can't force myself to get worked up about polyandry), but I saw this reply and thought I'd chime in. When I was doing my undergraduate study in America, I took many Institute classes from Kenneth Godfrey. In one of them, he mentioned to us that Church records (he did his PhD research in this field) indicate that fully 1/3 of adult males in the Church never married during the decades that plural marriage was practised. This was, he suggested, the very specific context for Heber C. Kimball's oft-(mis)quoted concern about unmarried men. One of the solutions to this sociological time bomb seems to have been to send large numbers of single men on missions for very long periods of time.

So was 33% unmarried men a symptom of polygamy? Or was polygamy a pragmatic/divine solution to non-committal men?

Or are they two entirely coincidental things?

What % of women went unmarried?

[cdowis]

105 males are born for every 100 females. But females quickly catch up in numbers. Would your assumption then mandate that women will predominate in the CK?

The evidence suggests that.

Single righteous men have exactly the same promise as single righteous women. Single righteous men whom get told No are in the same position as single righteous women who are never asked.

I will have to look up the reference, but in this society it is not the place of the woman to initiate a dating situation -- hunt down a mate, ask him on a date, etc. That is the responsibility of the heathy male, and if he fails in his righteous duty in this regard, he has no promise.

I find it not so significant righteously as a cultural expectation.

There is no excuse for inactivity. The female participation is not only in our church, but for other churches as well.

[Hamba Tuhan]

So was 33% unmarried men a symptom of polygamy? Or was polygamy a pragmatic/divine solution to non-committal men?

Or are they two entirely coincidental things?

What % of women went unmarried?

I wish Bro Godfrey were around to answer these questions. It was his clearly stated conclusion that polygamy was the cause of 1/3 of men going their entire lives without marriage -- which makes perfect mathematical sense, as you've already demonstrated. I remember for certain that he told us that at no point during the practise of plural marriage was there an abundance of extra women in the Church's records. That meant, simply, that every man who had one extra wife resulted in a man who would never marry. A man who had three extra wives created three lifelong bachelors. And so on. There's just no other way around it.

Of course, as I once read in a brilliant PhD on how the practice of plural marriage impacted gender relations in LDS communities, it's also entirely possible that many of these poor never-married men were amongst those least desirable to women. What polygamy seems to have done -- quite radically -- is allow women access to the social and economic benefits of marriage without having to settle for men who weren't, for example, very nice to women. But I still feel sorry for many of these men.

There is no real-world demographic situation in which the longterm, widespread practice of polygyny could be maintained for very long without coming up with some mechanism for dealing with the social disruption that always occurs with large numbers of unmarried (and hopeless) males.

I don't know what per cent of women never married during this time, and I don't remember Bro Godfrey addressing the issue, but I think I vaguely remember reading somewhere (maybe in the same PhD thesis) that they were very few. Sorry I can't be more clear or sure.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

105 males are born for every 100 females. But females quickly catch up in numbers. Would your assumption then mandate that women will predominate in the CK?

The evidence suggests that.

What 'evidence' are you talking about here? You're going to need to provide some hard data to back up this assertion. Speaking anecdotally, in my mission we baptised two men for every woman. I served in one ward where the ward mission leader and every single ward missionary had a non-member wife. In my current ward, our active members are predominantly male. I just looked up the last quarterly report, and we had 72% attendance in our MP quorums but only 32% in RS. The last two branches I lived in were heavily male, with the ratio in both being closer to 3:1.

In addition, I read an interesting article by a BYU demographer once that pointed out that the much higher mortality rate amongst young male children means that the CK will be overflowing with boys who died before the age of accountability -- this being just one more point to consider.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[cdowis]

I wish Bro Godfrey were around to answer these questions. It was his clearly stated conclusion that polygamy was the cause of 1/3 of men going their entire lives without marriage -- which makes perfect mathematical sense, as you've already demonstrated. I remember for certain that he told us that at no point during the practise of plural marriage was there an abundance of extra women in the Church's records. That meant, simply, that every man who had one extra wife resulted in a man who would never marry. A man who had three extra wives created three lifelong bachelors. And so on. There's just no other way around it.

I agree that it is unfortunate that he is not here to answer questions. What exactly, for example, does the "abundence" mean? While the numbers are interesting, it seems rather simplistic. Statistical analysis normally uses some sample controls -- physical location, marriageable age, etc. If your numbers have a large number of one sex who are under the age of 12, for example, your conclusion will be faulty. Also, at any one time, how many of the single men were on a mission (physical location).

Cause and effect relationship can be tricky. A study showed that there is a lower population of rodents in areas which have a large number of widows. We can take the "obvious" conclusion, or look deeper and discover that they tend to have several cats.

In any case, more single males may not be disposed to commit themselves to marriage, as much as the single women. They may be unable to find gainful employment to support a family. So the pool of single, able, willing, gainfully employed men may not be as large as the numbers in the church records suggest relative to the females.

Employment and disposition may be more of a critical factor than simple numbers.

I certainly trust that the Lord knows what He is doing.

Of course, as I once read in a brilliant PhD on how the practice of plural marriage impacted gender relations in LDS communities, it's also entirely possible that many of these poor never-married men were amongst those least desirable to women. What polygamy seems to have done -- quite radically -- is allow women access to the social and economic benefits of marriage without having to settle for men who weren't, for example, very nice to women. But I still feel sorry for many of these men.

There is no real-world demographic situation in which the longterm, widespread practice of polygyny could be maintained for very long without coming up with some mechanism for dealing with the social disruption that always occurs with large numbers of unmarried (and hopeless males).

These hopeless males can simply live at home with their parents. Going to parties and having fun, instead of actively searching out gainful employment sufficient to support a family and worthy mates.

I don't know what per cent of women never married during this time, and I don't remember Bro Godfrey addressing the issue, but I think I vaguely remember reading somewhere (maybe in the same PhD thesis) that they were very few. Sorry I can't be more clear or sure.

Edited June 15, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

What 'evidence' are you talking about here? You're going to need to provide some hard data to back up this assertion.

I guess that I have to trust the Lord with polygamy being one male, multiple females and not multiple males, one female. Pretty simplistic reasoning, but are you suggesting that perhaps He made a mistake?

snip

In addition, I read an interesting article by a BYU demographer once that pointed out that the much higher mortality rate amongst young male children means that the CK will be overflowing with boys who died before the age of accountability -- this being just one more point to consider.

Huh? OK, let's consider that.

Children prior to the age of accountability are not baptized, not endowed, and one can conclude that, being unendowed, they will not be sealed to a spouse. Hopefully you are aware that an unmarried individual is able to enter the CK.

Edited June 15, 2013 by cdowis

[Hamba Tuhan]

BY mentioned that single men are a danger to society.

As I have repeatedly pointed out in this forum, it was not Brigham Young; it was George Q Cannon. And it wasn't 'single men' generally -- in fact, he exempted 'individual cases' -- but rather 'a large number' of them (precisely the situation caused by the the practice of plural marriage in the 19th century):

While I do not make the remark to apply to individual cases, I am firmly of the opinion that a large number of unmarried men, over the age of twenty-four years, is a dangerous element in any community, and an element upon which society should look with a jealous eye. (George F. Gibbs, “Discourse by Elder Geo. Q. Cannon…April 7, 1878,” Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 7)

And of course, as history has repeatedly shown, large numbers of such men are socially disruptive due to being frustrated in their desires for compansionship and family.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

I guess that I have to trust the Lord with polygamy being one male, multiple females and not multiple males, one female. Pretty simplistic reasoning, but are you suggesting that perhaps He made a mistake?

No, I don't think the Lord made a mistake -- neither in commanding plural marriage for a short time nor in revoking it. But you keep alluding to some kind of 'evidence' that women are demonstrably more righteous than men and consequently Heaven will be overflowing with them. I was simply trying to get you to produce this evidence -- sort of a softer version of a CFR.

What exactly, for example, does the "abundence" mean?

What he specifically stated was that at no point in Church history were women disproportionately represented in the membership; instead, sex ratios in the Church have always reflected the sex ratio in the community at large, with adult females running at about 52% of Church members.

Children prior to the age of accountability are not baptized, not endowed, and one can conclude that, being unendowed, they will not be sealed to a spouse.

What a lovely future you've envisioned for these lost children. I hope it's OK that I'm grateful you're not in charge of such things.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

These hopeless males can simply live at home with their parents.

I'm assuming you've somehow determined that, in a situation where polygyny might again be practised, you'd be one of the men all the single women would be clamouring to marry instead of one of the 'hopeless' variety? I hope you never have to find out if you're right or not.

[Calm]

http://www.fairblog....e-lost-boys-go/

So where did the 19th century lost boys go? Perhaps they went to Neverland, as my research has failed to find any evidence of them. For males aged 20-35 leaving Mormonism would have made their prospects for marriage substantially worse.

Despite the disadvantages of males in the Utah marriage market, an in-depth study of marriage patterns in Manti, Utah, shows that only a small percentage of men failed eventually to marry and that they married at younger ages than men generally in the United States during the second half of the nineteenth century.

It is unclear, though, how many non-Mormon men, such as soldiers, merchants, and miners, were included in each census. Dean May has calculated that non-Mormons accounted for 12 percent of Utah’s population in 1860 and 21 percent in 1880. Because non-Mormon men undoubtedly outnumbered non-Mormon women in nineteenth-century Utah, the preponderance of men, as shown in the census, is unlikely to reflect the sex ratio within the Mormon population.

Further dissection of that age range shows that of the 638 single men, 198 were miners and 46 were soldiers. At that age range 85% of the soldiers in Fort Cameron or Douglas were single and 51% of the miners were. Throwing miners and soldiers out of the sample drops the never married number down to 12.2% which is below the national average.

Edited June 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In one of them, he mentioned to us that Church records (he did his PhD research in this field) indicate that fully 1/3 of adult males in the Church never married during the decades that plural marriage was practised.

This counteracts others' findings such as Daynes and Keller who went through the available census as well as local records. I'd like to see his data.

I believe I have found Godfrey's dissertation. It is titled: Causes of Mormon Non-Mormon Conflict in Hancock County, Illinois, 1839-1846 and was published in 1967. Hancock County is in Illinois. Perhaps his research on marriage rates was not done for the same time period as Keller's and Dayne's thus leading to different conclusions.

http://books.google....id=yjbiNQAACAAJ

Edited June 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

I hope we, on this forum, can get this problem solved so that Heavenly Father can rest easy tonight.

[Tacenda]

If it is true that some live in polygamy, then just the fact (men even say women are better or more righteous than men) that more women than men will end up in the CK, will take care of the problem. Now these righteous sisters will have a husband and family in the hereafter when they don't have it here on earth. I know one lady, my friend, who is counting on it! She doesn't go so far as to say she'll marry in polygamy though.

[canard78]

Children prior to the age of accountability are not baptized, not endowed, and one can conclude that, being unendowed, they will not be sealed to a spouse. Hopefully you are aware that an unmarried individual is able to enter the CK.

What an unpleasant notion. And not remotely founded in Mormon doctrine and quite simply wrong:

Little children shall be saved. They are alive in Christ and shall have eternal life. For them the family unit will continue, and the fulness of exaltation is theirs. No blessing shall be withheld. They shall rise in immortal glory, grow to full maturity, and live forever in the highest heaven of the celestial kingdom—all through the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah, all because of the atoning sacrifice of Him who died that we might live.

...

Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom?

To this question the answer is a thunderous yes, which echoes and re-echoes from one end of heaven to the other. Jesus taught it to his disciples. Mormon said it over and over again. Many of the prophets have spoken about it, and it is implicit in the whole plan of salvation. If it were not so the redemption would not be infinite in its application. And so, as we would expect, Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom contains this statement: “And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” (D&C 137:10)

It is sometimes asked if this applies to children of all races, and of course the answer is that when the revelation says all children it means all children. There is no restriction as to race, kindred, or tongue. Little children are little children and they are all alive in Christ, and all are saved by him, through and because of the atonement.

Speaking of the Prophet’s statement that all children are saved in the celestial kingdom, President Joseph Fielding Smith said: “This would mean the children of every race. All the spirits that come to this world come from the presence of God and, therefore, must have been in his kingdom. … Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and all who rebelled were cast out; therefore, all who remained are entitled to the blessings of the gospel.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:55.)

...

President Joseph Fielding Smith spoke very expressly on this point: “The Lord will grant unto these children the privilege of all the sealing blessings which pertain to the exaltation. We were all mature spirits before we were born, and the bodies of little children will grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the spirit, and all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience, the same as if they had lived to maturity and received them on the earth. The Lord is just and will not deprive any person of a blessing, simply because he dies before that blessing can be received. It would be manifestly unfair to deprive a little child of the privilege of receiving all the blessings of exaltation in the world to come simply because it died in infancy. … Children who die in childhood will not be deprived of any blessing. When they grow, after the resurrection, to the full maturity of the spirit, they will be entitled to all the blessings which they would have been entitled to had they been privileged to tarry here and receive them.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:54.)

...

Will children be married and live in the family unit?

Certainly. There can be no question about this. If they gain salvation, which is eternal life, which is exaltation, it means that they are married and live in the family unit. President Joseph Fielding Smith has so stated in plain words, and it is something that must necessarily be so. (See Doctrines of Salvation, 2:49–57.)

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/04/the-salvation-of-little-children?lang=eng

Having read this, do you stand by your comments.

As I mentioned previously, with the pre-8 deaths per year, infant deaths outstrip the Mormon new members by about 250:1. Rolling back through the centuries Mormons from mortality will probably be vastly outnumbered by those who reach the CK by a different route. Looking around the gender activity rates of your local unit will do nothing to estimate the profile of the CK participants.

Edited June 15, 2013 by canard78

[Calm]

I wish Bro Godfrey were around to answer these questions.

Is this page out of date? http://rsc.byu.edu/authors/godfrey-kenneth-w or do you mean 'not around' as in 'not on the board'.

Considering how later research directly contradicts his findings, I think it is important to try and clarify what he meant, exactly what time period and geographical area and how he came up with his numbers.

As far as I can tell, Brother Godfrey was living in Logan as of 2005:

http://mormonhistoricsites.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/MHS_FALL-2005_10-KENNETH-W-GODFREY.pdf

One can get his phone number through white pages...I could even pm it to trustworthy people (Humba, hint, hint)

Edited June 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

If it is true that some live in polygamy, then just the fact (men even say women are better or more righteous than men) that more women than men will end up in the CK, will take care of the problem. Now these righteous sisters will have a husband and family in the hereafter when they don't have it here on earth. I know one lady, my friend, who is counting on it! She doesn't go so far as to say she'll marry in polygamy though.

As I keep on saying Tacenda, Mormons will be outnumbered by at least 1000:1 by children who died before 8.

Then we also have the millions of men who have died in wars (before marriage) who are having the work done for them.

There is a 50:50 ratio in the world. There is no doctrine anywhere that this will be different in the eternities. So the only way that polygamy could work is for people to also practice polyandry.

[Deborah]

I have said before and I'll say again I think some people worry too much about this. I have complete faith that all these things will work out and that no one will be left out of all the blessings he or she is entitled to or desires. I think the sealing of people to one another is more than just providing one with a spouse in eternity but has more to do with what is stated in the scriptures:

2 And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers.

3 If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming. (D&C 2)

Edited June 15, 2013 by Deborah

[Sleeper Cell]

My point is that in order for polygamy to work logically in the eternities we have to go to almost ridiculous length of non-doctrinal mental contortion to make it work. Like there being more female spirits or more males in the third in preparation for polygamy.

Except I was not trying to prove that polygamy would exist in the eternities. I was simply pointing out that your proof (that it wouldn’t) rested on non-doctrinal assumptions that may or may not be true.

Do you believe that , in the eternities, there will only be a finite number of people, or do you believe there will be an infinite number of people? Your mathematical model simply does not apply. when there are an infinite number of people.

Perhaps we can agree that we know very little about our pre-moral life and even less about the eternities.

Frankly, I do not know whether polygamy will exist in the eternities, or, if so, in what form, or, for that matter, if it will be restricted to a very few special cases. But the existence of polygamy in the eternities seems to be currently doctrinal. Any mathematical proof to disprove a doctrine about the eternities (especially if it is based on a finite population and the way things work in mortality) could be called a “non-doctrinal mental contortion.”