EllenMaksoud Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 The Church Handbook says "A living woman may be sealed to only one husband." (3.6.1) Some other things in the survey that seemed to indicate an uneasiness about polygamy were things like choices that say things like that polygamy was not a commandment of God but was human error and has led to harm, or one that asked for feelings about polygamy and gave choices like Joy, Peace, Indifference, Sadness, or Anger. I don't think that anyone actually feels joy or peace upon learning about polygamy, but the only other choices are not exactly positive, which I thought was odd. Another question asked if the person being surveyed knew of any families that have experienced trouble or tension because of the question of who is going to be with whom in the next life. I've been a member of the LDS Church for 40 plus years and have never heard of such questions causing conflict in a family. The question seemed to be anticipating that negative responses would come. I have never understood the use of polygamy in light of what Jacob says. I am not against polygamy, having lived in communal situations that loosely approximated certain aspects of it, and I knew a couple Muslim women whose husbands had other wives. Sometimes it is unclear if the idea of emotional love unique to Western cultures? I wonder if a woman with two toddlers and no way to support herself would be opposed to it were things like welfare not available? Most Americans have a privileged life so would not be readily adaptable to it.
rockpond Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 It sounds like you are saying that nothing is sinful if God is o.k. with it. He allowed His prophet (many of them) to used an immoral cultural practice to accomplish His purposes and bless the entire world thru? (I'm just wanting to make sure i understand what you are saying). I didn't say that it was sinful or immoral -- I don't think it was/is. You asked how I understand polygamy in the Old Testament. My answer is that I believe it was the norm in that culture. I'm not opposed to the idea that those men in the OT were commanded to have multiple wives, but it does seem that it was the norm for wealthy/powerful men to have wives (plural) and concubines.
K-2 Posted March 6, 2014 Author Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Cultural norms for the time and place. Doesn't the Bible say that God gave David his wives? It seems like God must have had similar cultural norms. Edited March 6, 2014 by K-2
rockpond Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Doesn't the Bible say that God gave David his wives? It seems like God must have had similar cultural norms. Or that God was okay operating within the cultural norm of the time. Lamech (in Gen 4:19) was the first documented polygamist. He was a descendant of Cain. I'm not aware of any record of him being told by God to practice polygamy. He could have been but we don't know.
bluebell Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I didn't say that it was sinful or immoral -- I don't think it was/is. You asked how I understand polygamy in the Old Testament. My answer is that I believe it was the norm in that culture. I'm not opposed to the idea that those men in the OT were commanded to have multiple wives, but it does seem that it was the norm for wealthy/powerful men to have wives (plural) and concubines.Got it. As I first asked the question to those who seem to believe polygamy is sinful, I thought you were answering it as they might and from their point of view. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
frank_jessop Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Yes, but women are currently being sealed to more than one husband, with 1st presidency approval, so obviously the policy isn't set in stone.Is it just anecdotal evidence that you have to support the claim?
frank_jessop Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 It sounds like you are saying that nothing is sinful if God is o.k. with it. He allowed His prophet (many of them) to used an immoral cultural practice to accomplish His purposes and bless the entire world thru? (I'm just wanting to make sure i understand what you are saying).Better for one to perish than a whole to dwindle in unbelief.I think that supports the notion that an otherwise wrong, is right if God commands it. Polygamy, today would be considered adultery and an offense worthy of excommunication. It would not be adultery if polygamy was a practice of the Church and the proper procedures followed.
bluebell Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Is it just anecdotal evidence that you have to support the claim? Basically yes. It's just the word of women that are personally known who are currently sealed to more than one man (in one case, to more than one living man). Well, their word and everyone who was at the sealing i suppose.
rockpond Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Got it.As I first asked the question to those who seem to believe polygamy is sinful, I thought you were answering it as they might and from their point of view. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not seeking to be argumentative with this, so please don't take it that way but this is your question that I was responding to: "For those who think that polygamy has little to do with Christ or His gospel, how do you personally understand the OT reliance on polygamy to create the House of Israel, God's chosen people?" Nothing about sin. But maybe I misread your intent.
Ahab Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Apparently Carol Lynn Pearson is bothered by the fact that some women are afraid that they will die and their husband will marry another woman for eternity, or that he will die and they will be unable to initially be sealed for eternity to whatever man they may thereafter marry, even if they feel he is a better mate than their deceased husband. She seems to be bothered by the inequality she sees in the situation. She has made an online survey about the topic. Just wondering what everyone thinks about her survey, and about her concerns.I have sympathy for her concerns, and the concerns of any woman who has those feelings. My first (and only at this point) wife married me with the understanding that she would need to loose the seal to her first (at that point) husband and she has poor health now which will likely cause her to die before I do, so she kinda wonders what will happen to us if I am sealed to another woman. And I have told her that is a big IF because I really don't think I would want to. But still, there is that possibility, and that causes her to wonder and be a little concerned about it sometimes. So I suppose we'll both see what happens and deal with it however we wull choose to deal with it.
bluebell Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I'm not seeking to be argumentative with this, so please don't take it that way but this is your question that I was responding to: "For those who think that polygamy has little to do with Christ or His gospel, how do you personally understand the OT reliance on polygamy to create the House of Israel, God's chosen people?" Nothing about sin. But maybe I misread your intent. I should have been more clear. I meant 'for those who think that Christ would never condone polygamy'.
changed Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I meant 'for those who think that Christ would never condone polygamy'.I personally believe that polygamy represents the virgin Mary - a handmaid - being the mother of Jesus.
rockpond Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I should have been more clear. I meant 'for those who think that Christ would never condone polygamy'. Fair enough... I do NOT fall into that category.
JLHPROF Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 (edited) Yes, but women are currently being sealed to more than one husband, with 1st presidency approval, so obviously the policy isn't set in stone. But does that make it right? The first presidency once approved both the priesthood ban and the public espousing of the now denounced doctrines behind it. Members of the first presidency publicly taught blood atonement, Adam-God and other now disavowed practices and doctrines. The first presidency once allowed members to be sealed to them (adopted) as sons and daughters, a practice now stopped. Will those sealings be valid in eternity too? What makes the current first presidency position more eternally binding than a previous first presidency position (as established in the handbook and Church history)?And as others said, can we really know that such a sealing will be honored until the next life (or any other sealing for that matter). In the end the only valid sealings are the ones God approves and ratifies. I should think all others won't be binding. Edited March 6, 2014 by JLHPROF
bluebell Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 What makes the current first presidency position more eternally binding than a previous first presidency position (as established in the handbook and Church history)?And as others said, can we really know that such a sealing will be honored until the next life (or any other sealing for that matter). In the end the only valid sealings are the ones God approves and ratifies. I should think all others won't be binding. I suppose nothing makes it more binding. And i agree that the only thing that matters is what God approves. Your post seems to imply that we can't trust anything any prophet as ever said because sometimes the teachings change. Is that what you mean?
ERayR Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Isn't this the one where we receive the pat on the head and get told patronizingly, that it will all be worked out in the afterlife? What, You don't trust God? 1
JLHPROF Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 I suppose nothing makes it more binding. And i agree that the only thing that matters is what God approves. Your post seems to imply that we can't trust anything any prophet as ever said because sometimes the teachings change. Is that what you mean? No, my post seems to imply that the only things we can trust are what God directly reveals on a matter. We are all SO quick to dismiss the teachings of Brigham, John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith etc as "their opinions" but automatically assume that current prophets are teaching truth instead of opinion.Brigham taught that "you couldn't rob the dead" in relation to women being sealed to more than one man. If President Monson has authorized it then so be it. But in the absence of an acutal revelation why should I trust Pres. Monson more than Pres. Young (or really why should I trust Pres. Young more than Pres. Monson)? The point being is that Church policy is not 100% always the way God wants things to be. They do their best of course, but sometimes policy isn't correct and gets changed. We shouldn't assume current policy is always correct either. 1
bluebell Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 The point being is that Church policy is not 100% always the way God wants things to be. They do their best of course, but sometimes policy isn't correct and gets changed. We shouldn't assume current policy is always correct either. So we should assume nothing (teaching or policy) in the LDS church is correct?
Ahab Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 So we should assume nothing (teaching or policy) in the LDS church is correct?That's my policy. I don't like to assume anything.When I want to know what is correct I ask God. 1
JLHPROF Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 So we should assume nothing (teaching or policy) in the LDS church is correct? We should be wary of ANYTHING that isn't the direct word of God (as in recorded revelation). Assuming that every word that drops from the current prophet is right and every word that the past prophets have said might not be right is a nonsense way to show faith. All prophets have delivered the word of God. All prophets have expressed opinions. All prophets have contradicted other prophets. The only thing we can be sure of is when the scriptures say "I the Lord have commanded" or "Thus saith the Lord". These are not necessary for revelation, but they sure do make it easier to recognize.
bluebell Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 The only thing we can be sure of is when the scriptures say "I the Lord have commanded" or "Thus saith the Lord". Considering the issues that often come up with scripture (which is recorded by mere men who are no different than current and past prophets, after all), we can't even be sure of that, can we? 2
Calm Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 Is it just anecdotal evidence that you have to support the claim?If you are asking for official documents, don't have those yet.But am aware of a few firsthand anecdotes, including one from a bishop I know who helped it get oked and have heard reported several more secondhand reports.
Calm Posted March 6, 2014 Posted March 6, 2014 What makes the current first presidency position more eternally binding than a previous first presidency position (as established in the handbook and Church history)?And as others said, can we really know that such a sealing will be honored until the next life (or any other sealing for that matter). In the end the only valid sealings are the ones God approves and ratifies. I should think all others won't be binding.And at this point every sealing ever perform falls into that category.
rodheadlee Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 I got about half way through the test and didn't know any of the answers after that. Does this mean I am only half a Mormon? Same thing happened to me. I ask myself the same question time after time.
EllenMaksoud Posted March 7, 2014 Posted March 7, 2014 Same thing happened to me. I ask myself the same question time after time.I think they get a little carried away with Temple lore. This is a departure from LDS theological teaching, but if you are doing the Lord's will ... What ever.
Recommended Posts