Is There A Case For Polyandry

[Stone holm]

In several of the threads discussing what was said in the recent Church essay on polygamy, Commenters have made the argument that the Church allows the sealing of deceased women to more than one man, that there is some evidence that Joseph Smith may have been sealed to married women, and personal knowledge of special exceptions having been granted allowing living women to be sealed to a living man when they have been previously sealed to a deceased man.  This evidence is usually used in an attempt to discredit the idea that polygamy is doctrinal or to assert that it is "unjust".  Sometimes with the further argument that it has been disavowed as doctrine.

 

My personal feeling is that these arguments may perhaps provide the evidentiary basis for acceptance of polyandry, but are not evidence that polygamy was never doctrine, or that it is disavowed doctrine.  While I am of the firm belief that polygamy has not been disavowed as a doctrine that only applies when the Lord says it should, and while I am doubtful that the Church by its actions ever intended to sanction polyandry -- I do not know what to think of the arguments that several Sisters have made that suggest otherwise.  So this is not strictly a rhetorical question.  What is the likelihood that the Church would in the future, or has it in the past, acknowledged polyandry as a possible state for eternal couples in the Celestial Kingdom?  By asking this question, I do not want to be mistaken as asserting that this is what the Sisters were intending by their arguments, they were intending to promote something more like monogamy -- it is simply my understanding of where their arguments actual lead, which is not to overthrowing polygamy, but supporting polyandry.  Your comments please.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Stone holm

[Calm]

  "This evidence is usually used in an attempt to discredit the idea that polygamy is doctrinal or to assert that it is "unjust"."

If this is being applied to my efforts, it is a mistaken interpretation. The only thing I am promoting is the precise representation of what the Church is doing and saying in the here and now about plural marriage.

[Stone holm]

  "This evidence is usually used in an attempt to discredit the idea that polygamy is doctrinal or to assert that it is "unjust"."

If this is being applied to my efforts, it is a mistaken interpretation. The only thing I am promoting is the precise representation of what the Church is doing and saying in the here and now about plural marriage.

 

So how does that relate to polyandry?

[thesometimesaint]

In several of the threads discussing what was said in the recent Church essay on polygamy, Commenters have made the argument that the Church allows the sealing of deceased women to more than one man, that there is some evidence that Joseph Smith may have been sealed to married women, and personal knowledge of special exceptions having been granted allowing living women to be sealed to a living man when they have been previously sealed to a deceased man.  This evidence is usually used in an attempt to discredit the idea that polygamy is doctrinal or to assert that it is "unjust".  Sometimes with the further argument that it has been disavowed as doctrine.

 

My personal feeling is that these arguments may perhaps provide the evidentiary basis for acceptance of polyandry, but are not evidence that polygamy was never doctrine, or that it is disavowed doctrine.  While I am of the firm belief that polygamy has not been disavowed as a doctrine that only applies when the Lord says it should, and while I am doubtful that the Church by its actions ever intended to sanction polyandry -- I do not know what to think of the arguments that several Sisters have made that suggest otherwise.  So this is not strictly a rhetorical question.  What is the likelihood that the Church would in the future, or has it in the past, acknowledged polyandry as a possible state for eternal couples in the Celestial Kingdom?  By asking this question, I do not want to be mistaken as asserting that this is what the Sisters were intending by their arguments, they were intending to promote something more like monogamy -- it is simply my understanding of where their arguments actual lead, which is not to overthrowing polygamy, but supporting polyandry.  Your comments please.

 

While few women have been Sealed to more than one man. All that will be worked out in the Resurrection. They will be Sealed to only one man then.

[JAHS]

"All that will be worked out in the Resurrection"

 

So what are the odds that there will be exactly the same number of righteous women as righteous men who can be sealed together without having any leftovers?

[Stone holm]

Well, the arguments suggested that proxy sealings were the same as live sealings, thus because the Church sealed deceased women who had previously been sealed, that what was good for the gander was good for the goose.

[Calm]

So how does that relate to polyandry?

Nothing...it relates to the way you are inaccurately portraying a previous discussion.

[Stone holm]

Nothing...it relates to the way you are inaccurately portraying a previous discussion.

Not sure I was relating to a previous discussion with you, but in what way did I innacurately relate the argument, or is this just not liking where the logic leads?

[Calm]

Right...because there were so many other Sisters using the similarity of proxy and live sealings in some way as a premise in an analysis they were making.

As to not liking where the logic leads...you would have to represent my logic (which is best done withinits original context without adding your own faulty conclusions about my own POV) correctly first for me to begin to care. I don't feel the need to argue for or address the implications of strawmen reconstructions of my points.

As to what my argument was, I have already precisely described what my intent was with the limits of that intent. That you feel the need to ask what is inaccurate demonstrates again you don't understand it and therefore should not be claiming you are presenting someone else's argument when you are not.

Edited December 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Right...because there were so many other Sisters using the similarity of proxy and live sealings in some way as a premise in an analysis they were making.

As to not liking where the logic leads...you would have to represent my logic (which is best done withinits original context without adding your own faulty conclusions about my own POV) correctly first for me to begin to care. I don't feel the need to argue for or address the implications of strawmen reconstructions of my points.

As to what my argument was, I have already precisely described what my intent was with the limits of that intent. That you feel the need to ask what is inaccurate demonstrates again you don't understand it and therefore should not be claiming you are presenting someone else's argument when you are not.

Well I would quote those I was referring to, but I can't access them. So again, how did I misstate the argument?

 

You are baiting.  Stop it or find yourself another board.

[Calm]

Since you have access to this thread, feel free to reread post #2 as often as you like.

[Stone holm]

  "This evidence is usually used in an attempt to discredit the idea that polygamy is doctrinal or to assert that it is "unjust"."

If this is being applied to my efforts, it is a mistaken interpretation. The only thing I am promoting is the precise representation of what the Church is doing and saying in the here and now about plural marriage.

 

Sorry I misunderstood.  Although I am honestly not sure you were the poster that I was referring to.  I was seeing quite a few posts that appeared to be arguing that polygamy was never doctrinal, I disagree with that argument and do not think it can be supported because of current Church policy which allows men to be sealed twice or more.  But then someone, not sure who, argued that deceased women were also currently being sealed to more than one man, and that in some instances living women were allowed to be sealed to a living man without getting a prior sealing to a deceased husband canceled, and some were citing evidence that Joseph Smith may have been sealed to women who were already sealed to another man.  I know the first is true, and I accept that the second may be occurring though I know of no such thing personally, and I have no clue as to the veracity of the Joseph Smith sealing assertion but accept that it may be true.  If all of these references which were asserted by someone, are true.  Then it would seem that a case has been made for Polyandry -- would you agree?  Not trying to be offensive or bait anyone here.

[JLHPROF]

Sorry I misunderstood.  Although I am honestly not sure you were the poster that I was referring to.  I was seeing quite a few posts that appeared to be arguing that polygamy was never doctrinal, I disagree with that argument and do not think it can be supported because of current Church policy which allows men to be sealed twice or more.  But then someone, not sure who, argued that deceased women were also currently being sealed to more than one man, and that in some instances living women were allowed to be sealed to a living man without getting a prior sealing to a deceased husband canceled, and some were citing evidence that Joseph Smith may have been sealed to women who were already sealed to another man.  I know the first is true, and I accept that the second may be occurring though I know of no such thing personally, and I have no clue as to the veracity of the Joseph Smith sealing assertion but accept that it may be true.  If all of these references which were asserted by someone, are true.  Then it would seem that a case has been made for Polyandry -- would you agree?  Not trying to be offensive or bait anyone here.

 

There is only one recorded instance of the Prophet Joseph having a plural wife who was actually sealed to another man in eternal marriage.  This is the only marriage that the participants would have considered polyandrous.  All other circumstances were civil marriages which the participants didn't recognize as legitimate marriages to God.  Calling Joseph polyandrous is a stretch if you believe eternal marriage to be the only valid kind of marriage.

[Stone holm]

There is only one recorded instance of the Prophet Joseph having a plural wife who was actually sealed to another man in eternal marriage.  This is the only marriage that the participants would have considered polyandrous.  All other circumstances were civil marriages which the participants didn't recognize as legitimate marriages to God.  Calling Joseph polyandrous is a stretch if you believe eternal marriage to be the only valid kind of marriage.

Like I said, I have no clue as to the correctness of the assertions regarding Joseph Smith. So if we leave that one out, how about the other references being a support for polyandry?

[bluebell]

While few women have been Sealed to more than one man. All that will be worked out in the Resurrection. They will be Sealed to only one man then.

 

So, when the scriptures say that what is sealed on earth shall be sealed in heaven, and all of that stuff, in the case of women, they are lying?

[bluebell]

Well, the arguments suggested that proxy sealings were the same as live sealings, thus because the Church sealed deceased women who had previously been sealed, that what was good for the gander was good for the goose.

 

Maybe it's already been said, but it's important to realize that this does not just apply to deceased women.  The church is currently sealing living women to more than one spouse.  It takes special permission, but from what some bishops have said, is not hard to get.

[Stone holm]

Maybe it's already been said, but it's important to realize that this does not just apply to deceased women.  The church is currently sealing living women to more than one spouse.  It takes special permission, but from what some bishops have said, is not hard to get.

Yes, I pointed that out...I think...maybe not, are you saying that living women have been sealed to more than one living man? I pointed out that women have been sealed to more than one man without cancelation of a sealing to a deceased man. If a dual sealing has been allowed in the situation where everyone is living that would be even stronger support for polyandry.

[daz2]

As far as church sealing living women who were previously sealed, without a cancellatoin, any sources on that?

 

As far as how things will be structured in the hereafter, I don't know.  If sealing of a man to more than one woman can be effective in the hereafter, I do not know why a sealing of a woman to more than one man could not be.

[bluebell]

As far as church sealing living women who were previously sealed, without a cancellatoin, any sources on that?

 

As far as how things will be structured in the hereafter, I don't know.  If sealing of a man to more than one woman can be effective in the hereafter, I do not know why a sealing of a woman to more than one man could not be.

 

Rongo, as a bishop, was involved in three i believe.  He spoke about it in another thread and i'd have to go back and re-read his exact words (either he was personally involved, or knows the women who were, something like that).

 

Juliann also spoke about her experiences with it (not personally, but with women who have had it done).

[bluebell]

Yes, I pointed that out...I think...maybe not, are you saying that living women have been sealed to more than one living man? I pointed out that women have been sealed to more than one man without cancelation of a sealing to a deceased man. If a dual sealing has been allowed in the situation where everyone is living that would be even stronger support for polyandry.

 

I honestly don't know.  We'll have to get some of the posters who have experience with this to elaborate.

[Stone holm]

I honestly don't know.  We'll have to get some of the posters who have experience with this to elaborate.

 

Oh okay, I wasn't certain what you were saying.  It would surprise me that they would allow a second sealing to a man where everyone was alive, can't come up with a rationale for that other than polyandry.  Can you?

[pogi]

This is the only marriage that the participants would have considered polyandrous. 

 

All other circumstances were civil marriages which the participants didn't recognize as legitimate marriages to God. 

 

Does a civil monogamous marriage make it less monogamous because it is only a civil marriage?  The same is true for polyandrous marriages.  They would have considered all polyandrous marriages as polyandrous, only one of them as eternally polyandrous.

 

Of course the participants and God recognized civil marriages as legitimate, or they would have been guilty of fornication.  If you did not believe that God commanded these polyandrous marriages, you could not dismiss the fact that both the participants and God would have recognized any extramarital affairs or marriages as infidelity.  They would not have been justified without a command from God. 

 

Either polyandry is an eternal principle, or Joseph stripped these men of the opportunity to be sealed to their rightful and lawful wives.

 

Calling Joseph polyandrous is a stretch if you believe eternal marriage to be the only valid kind of marriage.

 

Eternal marriage does not alter the definition of polyandry.  By your line of reasoning, we could not then consider any polygamist a polygamists unless they are sealed.  Joseph practiced polyandry making him polyandrous.  To try to argue otherwise is a "stretch".  You even stated above that one of the woman was indeed sealed to another man and that the participants would have recognized at least this one marriage as polyandrous.  Isn't that enough? 

Edited December 23, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

If the church does not repudiate Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages, there is definitely a case for polyandry.  It will not prove that polyandry is an eternal principle, but a good case could be made. 

[Calm]

I honestly don't know.  We'll have to get some of the posters who have experience with this to elaborate.

Rongo said "civil divorces" for the sealings he mentioned.  Perhaps he will elaborate to ensure we understood him correctly.

 

I can see why the Church would want to do that in the case of children being born to the first husband so wanting them to ffel the connection was still there while allowing for the second family to feel like their relationship had just as much eternal significance as the first one....whatever that might be.

Edited December 23, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Rongo said "civil divorces" for the sealings he mentioned.  Perhaps he will elaborate to ensure we understood him correctly.

 

I can see why the Church would want to do that in the case of children being born to the first husband so wanting them to ffel the connection was still there while allowing for the second family to feel like their relationship had just as much eternal significance as the first one....whatever that might be.

Even where a cancelation of the spousal sealing occurs, the Church will advise that does not affect the sealing of the children, although they do not elaborate on how that is suppose to work eternally. Hard time understanding the rationale for leaving a double sealing in place except as evidence that polyandry is somehow an unrevealed eternal principle.