New Essay On Polygamy From Lds.org

[Stone holm]

So if a woman said the same thing to you about her second husband, would you tell her be assured she will have both of her eternal companions eternally?

 

No I wouldn't.  A woman being sealed in the Temple is a much tougher issue for a woman.  I am not sure of the Church's current policy, but I do not believe they allow a Sister who has been sealed and whose husband is deceased, to be sealed again while she is alive to another husband, without the first sealing being canceled.  I know of one sister in our Ward who is in that predicament.  My own personal belief is that this was the predicament that Joseph was thinking about when the angel assured him that Mary's sealing to Heavenly Father would not destroy his eternal progeny as he would be provided for.

[Calm]

No I wouldn't.  A woman being sealed in the Temple is a much tougher issue for a woman.  I am not sure of the Church's current policy, but I do not believe they allow a Sister who has been sealed and whose husband is deceased, to be sealed again while she is alive to another husband, without the first sealing being canceled.  I know of one sister in our Ward who is in that predicament.  My own personal belief is that this was the predicament that Joseph was thinking about when the angel assured him that Mary's sealing to Heavenly Father would not destroy his eternal progeny as he would be provided for.

There a few anecdotal stories where women have been given permission while living to be sealed to another man after their first husband died without a cancelation.  I am repeating it here because of knowing personally one person involved in such, someone who would not lie about it plus you can come across a few other here and there online.

 

But even if we ignore these and just go by policy, sealings to all of a woman's husbands are done after she is dead and they have removed any language in the CHI that differentiated between a deceased woman's sealing and a deceased man's sealing.

 

So why are men's loves so precious that they have a right to be angry if anyone questions the possibility that they might not have all their loving companions eternally and yet a woman in the identical position----sealed to another man---is somehow not given the right to fully commit, to treasure those she loves eternally, to have it all?  Why is a woman not promised as much as a man...why are the men these women are married to deprived of the same blessings as their brothers just because they love a woman loved by another man?  

 

Each marriage/sealing involves a man and a woman.  Why would the sealing mean something different to both people involved in the identical ceremony?  Why would God treat his daughters and their husbands (both men and women) so differently from his sons and their wives (both men and women)?  The groups are identical in potential and attributes.  Nothing separates them but the order of being married.  It makes no sense when there is no need to be concerned about who the progeny belongs to (even as we can determine today biologically), when all are promised eternal progeny and all have infinite time in which to acquire it.

 

It really makes no sense if one believes spiritual progeny are adopted as some do.

 

I find it amazing that there are some that are so certain of a man's right to possess all the women he loves eternally no matter what and yet turn around and to that same woman if she was sealed to more than one man tell her her love and sealing isn't meaningful like her husband's and she will have to lose those she loved, watch them walk away from her while she is expected somehow to turn off that love, treat that mortal experience as just a trial of endurance even as she watches her husband embrace and celebrate with all those he was sealed that all they had been through was so worth it and so much more.

 

If there is joy in heaven over eternal families, it seems so strange and counterintuitive to me that God has set it up from day one that women are not be able to participate fully in that joy if they happened to have had the greater capacity to love here in mortality, that they are punished with the loss of their loved ones not through wickedness but because they are righteous and obedient even while men are blessed and rewarded for doing the exact same thing.

 

There is no logic in saying a sealing for a woman is different than a sealing for a man, especially when it is the same sealing we are talking about...each woman's sealing that is alleged to be dissolved in the eternities is also a man's sealing that is being dissolved.  If it can take place in the one case for a man, why not the other?

Edited December 18, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

There a few anecdotal stories where women have been given permission while living to be sealed to another man after their first husband died without a cancelation.  I am repeating it here because of knowing personally one person involved in such, someone who would not lie about it plus you can come across a few other here and there online.

 

But even if we ignore these and just go by policy, sealings to all of a woman's husbands are done after she is dead and they have removed any language in the CHI that differentiated between a deceased woman's sealing and a deceased man's sealing.

 

So why are men's loves so precious that they have a right to be angry if anyone questions the possibility that they might not have all their loving companions eternally and yet a woman in the identical position----sealed to another man---is somehow not given the right to fully commit, to treasure those she loves eternally, to have it all?  Why is a woman not promised as much as a man...why are the men these women are married to deprived of the same blessings as their brothers just because they love a woman loved by another man?  

 

Each marriage/sealing involves a man and a woman.  Why would the sealing mean something different to both people involved in the identical ceremony?  Why would God treat his daughters and their husbands (both men and women) so differently from his sons and their wives (both men and women)?  The groups are identical in potential and attributes.  Nothing separates them but the order of being married.  It makes no sense when there is no need to be concerned about who the progeny belongs to (even as we can determine today biologically), when all are promised eternal progeny and all have infinite time in which to acquire it.

 

It really makes no sense if one believes spiritual progeny are adopted as some do.

 

I find it amazing that there are some that are so certain of a man's right to possess all the women he loves eternally no matter what and yet turn around and to that same woman if she was sealed to more than one man tell her her love and sealing isn't meaningful like her husband's and she will have to lose those she loved, watch them walk away from her while she is expected somehow to turn off that love, treat that mortal experience as just a trial of endurance even as she watches her husband embrace and celebrate with all those he was sealed that all they had been through was so worth it and so much more.

 

If there is joy in heaven over eternal families, it seems so strange and counterintuitive to me that God has set it up from day one that women are not be able to participate fully in that joy if they happened to have had the greater capacity to love here in mortality, that they are punished with the loss of their loved ones not through wickedness but because they are righteous and obedient even while men are blessed and rewarded for doing the exact same thing.

 

There is no logic in saying a sealing for a woman is different than a sealing for a man, especially when it is the same sealing we are talking about...each woman's sealing that is alleged to be dissolved in the eternities is also a man's sealing that is being dissolved.  If it can take place in the one case for a man, why not the other?

 

If a woman or a man wants out of a Temple sealing after they have died, they would have the right to get out of the sealing.  But that is something that is very different than saying that plural marriage is not doctrinal and that people are going to be involuntarily "unsealed and unmarried" if they both wish to be sealed and married after they die.  I cannot imagine that the Lord is going to honor a sealing where one of the parties does not desire it, I also cannot imagine that the Lord is going to "unseal and unmarry" polygamous unions because we currently have a cultural aversion to the idea.

[bluebell]

If a woman or a man wants out of a Temple sealing after they have died, they would have the right to get out of the sealing.  But that is something that is very different than saying that plural marriage is not doctrinal and that people are going to be involuntarily "unsealed and unmarried" if they both wish to be sealed and married after they die.  I cannot imagine that the Lord is going to honor a sealing where one of the parties does not desire it, I also cannot imagine that the Lord is going to "unseal and unmarry" polygamous unions because we currently have a cultural aversion to the idea.

 

Cal's point is this:  If you are going to use 'it would be cruel for God to split up a man from a wife he loves and is sealed to just because he also loves and is sealed to another wife as well' to support polygamy, then you have to support polyandry as well or the argument isn't valid.  

 

There are women who have been sealed to more than one man.  Can you imagine the Lord 'unsealing and unmarrying' those unions? 

[Stone holm]

Cal's point is this:  If you are going to use 'it would be cruel for God to split up a man from a wife he loves and is sealed to just because he also loves and is sealed to another wife as well' to support polygamy, then you have to support polyandry as well or the argument isn't valid.  

 

There are women who have been sealed to more than one man.  Can you imagine the Lord 'unsealing and unmarrying' those unions? 

 

If the Lord approved polyandry and authorized an unconditional sealing for it, then who would I be to say that such should be abrogated.  So no if both men and the woman were in agreement, and the Lord authorized it -- I would have no problem with it.  But that is not an argument which results in the conclusion that polygamy was not doctrinal and that monogamy prevails, that is merely an argument that polyandry should be considered as well.  (Don't get me wrong here -- am not arguing that polyandry is doctrinal.)

[juliann]

Yeah, I find the argument that my eternal companion sitting right beside me is not really my eternal companion or that the mother of six of my children is not also my eternal companion slightly offensive, and I am not easily offended.

And you don't think women would be just as offended to be told they must choose??   You really can't see the lack of compassion for widows in what you are doing?

 

And here is some good news and some bad news.  Most don't seem to know that Elder Oaks backed way off of his declaration about his impending polygyny and continue to use older quotes.  From the Newsroom....

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary

 

First the bad news....

 

HW: There still is some confusion that polygamy is definitively and unequivocally disallowed in this world. What will happen in the next? There is a perception that polygamy is part of the afterlife. Could you talk a little about that?

 

DHO: If I talked about that I’d be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldn’t say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that. There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes they’ve ended with divorce. What does the next life mean to them in relation to a covenant they once made and so on? I don’t think those people have much of an answer for that question. It might not bother them because they don’t believe that people will live as married couples in the next life. And if they don’t make and live for the covenants to do that, [as for themselves] they’re right! But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, “What will life be in the next life, when you’re married to more than one wife for eternity?” I have to say I don’t know. But I know that I’ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing that’s anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I don’t know.

 

Wow, he can't make doctrinal statements because the prophet hasn't. On purpose, he chooses not to.  He begins with "people...that have been married to more than one person."  That leaves it open to...all people not just men.  He then moves to his own situation and begins talking about more than one wife.  For someone who needs to prevent women from enjoying the same blessings and covenants that men do, I suppose they could claim he was really talking only about men the whole time.  Like the other statements, it is dodgey enough that people can read into it and we are basically back to I don't know and the prophet won't say so.

 

The good news for those who deprive women of the spouses they also love, he does refer to it as "doctrine" in an incidental comment...but before he goes into this linguistically tortured explanation above in which it changes to the prophet hasn't made any doctrinal statements about it.  He also reduces it to "a belief". Which is why you will not be able to find a living prophet calling it doctrine and not just because he didn't get around to it, he chooses not to.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by juliann

[Calm]

But that is not an argument which results in the conclusion that polygamy was not doctrinal and that monogamy prevails, that is merely an argument that polyandry should be considered as well.  (Don't get me wrong here -- am not arguing that polyandry is doctrinal.)

Not speaking towards doctrine or principle or practice but the conditions often attached to it....

 

Do you see any need to calculate in the fact in any argument that women's sealings only count once (for one relationship) that male sealings are defined by such a condition as just as flexible as female ones given that for every female sealing that is alleged to be disavowed, a male sealing is set aside as well.

 

IOW, it is valid to state if one believes sealings will be set aside by God for one person (outside of worthiness issues), there is no reason to assume that they won't be set aside for another person, no matter what gender that person is.  There will be the same number of male sealings canceled in the next life as female if there are any sealings canceled at all. (in the sense of sealing men and women together, not with their sealing relationship with God himself)  Therefore being male does not protect you from having your sealings canceled.

Edited December 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Not speaking towards doctrine or principle or practice but the conditions often attached to it....

 

Do you see any need to calculate in the fact in any argument that women's sealings only count once that male sealings are defined by such a condition as just as flexible as female ones given that for every female sealing that is alleged to be disavowed, a male sealing is set aside as well.

 

IOW, it is valid to state if one believes sealings will be set aside by God for one person (outside of worthiness issues), there is no reason to assume that they won't be set aside for another person, no matter what gender that person is.  There will be the same number of male sealings canceled in the next life as female if there are any sealings canceled at all. (in the sense of sealing men and women together, not with their sealing relationship with God himself)  Therefore being male does not protect you from having your sealings canceled.

Not sure I understand this rant given my post.

[omni]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet.  With the church admitting to post-manifesto polygamy in the essay, how does one reconcile canonized scripture which seeming shows the prophet through revelation, deceiving both the membership of the church and the U.S. government?

 

 

 

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

 I, therefore, as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

 One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

 Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

 There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

 

Wilford Woodruff

President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

 

 

D. Michael Quinn, the foremost expert on post-manifesto polygamy had this to say.

 

 

Even the revised Manifesto was a curious document because most of its retrospective statements were untrue. The Utah Commission report claimed that forty Utah male residents married plural wives since June 1889. Sealing and genealogical records demonstrate that at least thirty men did so. Since Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith authorized and knew about the polygamous marriages in Mexico for Utahns during that period, they chose to redefine the Utah Commission’s report as a charge of new polygamous marriages performed in Utah, and yet even that did not end the difficulty: somebody in the First Presidency also signed recommends for the dozen plural marriages performed in the Salt Lake Endowment House and temples from June through October 1889.

 

Wilford Woodruff in the final version of the Manifesto referred to the publicized Jorgenson plural marriage in the spring of 1889 and said, "But I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony." One of the three apostles who approved the Manifesto before its publication was Franklin D. Richards, who had officiated at the Jorgenson marriage and had also performed ten other plural marriages in the Endowment House from June through August 1889. The second of the three apostles who approved the Manifesto prior to publication was Marriner W. Merrill, the Logan Temple president who married a plural wife in July 1889 in that temple and who had performed several other plural marriages there from July to October 1889....Nevertheless, only 10 percent of the new polygamous marriages formed from the announcement of the Manifesto through the end of 1904 fit into these six categories of polygamy that did not require LDS Church authority. Ninety percent of new polygamous marriages contracted from September 1890 through December 1904 directly involved Church authority....In 1894, the First Presidency committed themselves to the position that there were circumstances under which plural marriages would not only be permitted but also encouraged, and by the authority of the Presidency, one plural marriage occurred in Canada, six in Mexico, and two in Utah temples. That pattern continued about the same in 1895 and 1896. 

.

 

In 1901, the Church president continued to refuse to authorize the Juarez Stake president to perform plural marriages in Mexico, but marriages continued there anyway because of the separate avenue established by his counselor. All the while, Latter-day Saints of prominent Church position continued to enter into polygamy in Utah on the basis of still another authorized avenue. The Church president compounded the confusion by authorizing several apostles individually to marry plural wives at the same time he refused to give the apostles generally that permission. The public and private messages on new plural marriages had become so muddy by 1901 that prominent Church authorities became opponents or advocates of new plural marriages sincerely believing that they had First Presidency authorization for their contradictory positions. Other Church authorities, even at the highest levels, were confused about the rumors of new plural marriages and ambivalent in their own feelings about the correctness of such unions. On 11 September 1901, theDeseret Evening News branded as "groundless" and "utterly false" the statement of a Protestant minister that "one of the Apostles had recently taken an additional wife," when in fact four apostles had married plural wives so far that year.

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by omni

[juliann]

Not sure I understand this rant given my post.

That is just downright rude, I tend to get annoyed but Cal is never less than polite and civil.   What no one factors in when they are giving away women's sealings is that there wouldn't be a sealing unless a man was attached.  Undo the woman's, you undo the man's.  That is why I am unsuccessfully trying to explain that under a system where women are just bystanders without emotion, not one man's sealing is safe unless he outlives the wife.  Further, one can't really speak for a dead person.  The deceased woman may not have any interest in someone else in the marriage so at that point the man must choose....just as so many expect the woman to do.  I'm not directing this at you but there is a really, really troubling sense of male entitlement undergirding polygamy.  More than anything, it showcases the problem that has arisen in the way the church deals with women (and I don't think it is intentional).  When men are taught that women are there to support them in whatever they do and women are taught that is their God given role, women quickly become faceless helpers and it becomes easy to disallow them the feelings that men take for granted.

[juliann]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet.  With the church admitting to post-manifesto polygamy in the essay, how does one reconcile canonized scripture which seeming shows the prophet through revelation, deceiving both the membership of the church and the U.S. government?

 

Isn't this usually chalked up to self-preservation or civil disobedience? I don't think post manifesto polygamy is even on the radar for the majority, there are much bigger issues with the polygamy itself...at this stage, women and children being cut loose rather than the government grandfathering existing families ranks higher IMO.  

[Calm]

 this rant 

It is not a rant.  It is a logical implication that I was curious about how you viewed it.

 

Your labeling it a rant tells me enough....once more an emotional response to the concept of plural marriage wins over a consideration of what it actually entails in an eternal sense.

Edited December 19, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

That is just downright rude, I tend to get annoyed but Cal is never less than polite and civil.   

 

 

I have my moments....but thank you.

[JLHPROF]

I'm surprised no one has brought this up yet.  With the church admitting to post-manifesto polygamy in the essay, how does one reconcile canonized scripture which seeming shows the prophet through revelation, deceiving both the membership of the church and the U.S. government?

 

I reconcile it just fine.  The prophet has often had to say things publicly that were different than the inner workings of the Church.

 

Joseph Smith publicly denied polygamy while he at the time had many wives.

Wilford Woodruff publicly said polygamy had ceased while authorizing further marriages and even taking another wife himself.

Gordon B. Hinckley publicly said that he didn't know that we taught or emphasized that God was once a man like us.

 

It probably has something to do with casting pearls before swine.  I know people hate the term, but "Lying For The Lord" has a long history.

[omni]

Isn't this usually chalked up to self-preservation or civil disobedience? I don't think post manifesto polygamy is even on the radar for the majority, there are much bigger issues with the polygamy itself...at this stage, women and children being cut loose rather than the government grandfathering existing families ranks higher IMO.  

 

 

If Quinn is to be trusted on this (and I believe he has the documentation to back it up) then we have a documented case of a prophet lying in canonical scripture.  While this isn't my biggest issue with polygamy (I think we'll see those in the Nauvoo essay), it is significant none the less.

Edited December 19, 2013 by omni

[Calm]

We already have examples of prophets lying in the scriptures...Abraham is the one that jumps to mind most easily.

[juliann]

 

If Quinn is to be trusted on this (and I believe he has the documentation to back it up) then we have a documented case of a prophet lying in canonical scripture.  While this isn't my biggest issue with polygamy (I think we'll see those in the Nauvoo essay), I think it is significant none the less.

 

I think the treatment of Emma when polygamy was instituted is a much, much bigger problem but that's just me.

[omni]

I reconcile it just fine.  The prophet has often had to say things publicly that were different than the inner workings of the Church.

 

Joseph Smith publicly denied polygamy while he at the time had many wives.

Wilford Woodruff publicly said polygamy had ceased while authorizing further marriages and even taking another wife himself.

Gordon B. Hinckley publicly said that he didn't know that we taught or emphasized that God was once a man like us.

 

It probably has something to do with casting pearls before swine.  I know people hate the term, but "Lying For The Lord" has a long history.

 

 

I must say I always appreciate your frankness on issues of church history.  That being said, how do you reconcile this with the church's own correlated description of lying?

 

 

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by omni

[omni]

We already have examples of prophets lying in the scriptures...Abraham is the one that jumps to mind most easily.

 

So how are we to determine when lying is condoned by God?

[Stone holm]

That is just downright rude, I tend to get annoyed but Cal is never less than polite and civil.   What no one factors in when they are giving away women's sealings is that there wouldn't be a sealing unless a man was attached.  Undo the woman's, you undo the man's.  That is why I am unsuccessfully trying to explain that under a system where women are just bystanders without emotion, not one man's sealing is safe unless he outlives the wife.  Further, one can't really speak for a dead person.  The deceased woman may not have any interest in someone else in the marriage so at that point the man must choose....just as so many expect the woman to do.  I'm not directing this at you but there is a really, really troubling sense of male entitlement undergirding polygamy.  More than anything, it showcases the problem that has arisen in the way the church deals with women (and I don't think it is intentional).  When men are taught that women are there to support them in whatever they do and women are taught that is their God given role, women quickly become faceless helpers and it becomes easy to disallow them the feelings that men take for granted.

If you read what she was responding to, you might note that I said, it was a good argument for polyandry . Just not a good argument to declare polygamy non doctrinal and to start breaking up relationship which have the blessing of the Church and are in accordance with the desires of the parties involved. Same would be true of polyandry if the Church blessed it.

[Calm]

So how are we to determine when lying is condoned by God?

The same way as everything else, study it and  seek the Lord's input.

[JLHPROF]

I must say I always appreciate your frankness on issues of church history.  That being said, how do you reconcile this with the church's own correlated description of lying?

 

Well, thank you.  I try to be frank (and occasionally blunt) on all areas of the Gospel.  I was born without the PC gene where the gospel is concerned.  The gospel says what it says.  The prophets taught what they taught.  The official line is irrelevant and whatever God has said is all that matters.

 

As far as the church description of lying, it's accurate.  The church also calls murder a great sin, but Nephi killed Laban.  The church today says that all who believe in Adam-God are heretics but Brigham Young and a large number of respected church leaders believed it without jeopardizing their salvation.  The church said that polygamy had to stop in 1890 and most of the leaders kept at it for another 15 years. 

 

There are absolutes in the gospel, but the absolutes are the eternal things.  Those things that are in heaven and with God are absolute.  Here on earth, the absolutes are whatever God has revealed because we don't know all the rules.  And that includes when to lie.

[JLHPROF]

Cal's point is this:  If you are going to use 'it would be cruel for God to split up a man from a wife he loves and is sealed to just because he also loves and is sealed to another wife as well' to support polygamy, then you have to support polyandry as well or the argument isn't valid.  

 

There are women who have been sealed to more than one man.  Can you imagine the Lord 'unsealing and unmarrying' those unions? 

 

I am afraid I can imagine that the Lord will "unseal" any temple polyandrous sealings since I don't think they should have happened in the first place.  In the covenant of marriage (both here when authorized and in eternity) a man can be sealed/married to multiple women.  A woman cannot be sealed/married to multiple men.

Love does matter, but it doesn't overcome eternal law.

 

Remember the reason for marriage, both plural & monogamous - to raise up seed.

This is made clear in Jacob 2:30, Genesis 1:28 (first commandment God gave to man), D&C 132:19 (the gift of eternal increase) etc.

Polyandrous marriage doesn't increase the number of righteous seed raised over monogamy and creates confusion in our sealing lines.  Polygamous marriage when ordained of God can increase the number of spirit children born into a righteous family.

 

The reason may seem cold, but we have to look beyond our mortal eyes and be realistic.  It's not about our limited perspective on marital love.  It's about eternity and our exaltation and living as God lives.

Edited December 19, 2013 by JLHPROF

[Mystery Meat]

And you don't think women would be just as offended to be told they must choose??   You really can't see the lack of compassion for widows in what you are doing?

 

And here is some good news and some bad news.  Most don't seem to know that Elder Oaks backed way off of his declaration about his impending polygyny and continue to use older quotes.  From the Newsroom....

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-oaks-interview-transcript-from-pbs-documentary

 

First the bad news....

 

Wow, he can't make doctrinal statements because the prophet hasn't. On purpose, he chooses not to.  He begins with "people...that have been married to more than one person."  That leaves it open to...all people not just men.  He then moves to his own situation and begins talking about more than one wife.  For someone who needs to prevent women from enjoying the same blessings and covenants that men do, I suppose they could claim he was really talking only about men the whole time.  Like the other statements, it is dodgey enough that people can read into it and we are basically back to I don't know and the prophet won't say so.

 

The good news for those who deprive women of the spouses they also love, he does refer to it as "doctrine" in an incidental comment...but before he goes into this linguistically tortured explanation above in which it changes to the prophet hasn't made any doctrinal statements about it.  He also reduces it to "a belief". Which is why you will not be able to find a living prophet calling it doctrine and not just because he didn't get around to it, he chooses not to.

I'm not above admitting when I am wrong. Thanks for this Juliann.

[Calm]

Remember the reason for marriage, both plural & monogamous - to raise up seed.

When only those who are celestial are married, there is no benefit to polygyny for raising up righteous seed.  Every man a woman could marry will be a righteous father, every woman a righteous mother.  How the bonds are in place won't matter, only the opportunities to get pregnant...assuming biology is the same (which is a huge leap).  In fact, a woman is more likely to have more children under polyandry than she would polygyny if the same rules apply to eternal seed as mortal seed (I don't personally think celestial progeny that numbers as the stars in the sky number refers to women being pregnant for most of their eternal existence).  Plural marriage in Utah actually decreased the number of children women had, it only increased the number of children for men.

 

So for any specific male-female bond from a pool of all righteous individuals, polygyny is a negative when it comes to "raising seed".

 

http://www.livescience.com/13010-polygamy-good-men-bad-women.html

 

Again this kind of reasoning...let's reward the righteous men by giving them more children/wives while shafting the righteous women by depriving them of children/husbands.

Edited December 19, 2013 by calmoriah