Is There Polygamy In Heaven?

[juliann]

Not a single item you mention features a single doctrinal teaching.  No prophet, apostle, or any GA has ever said that there will be eternal polyandry.  

They don't have to. They say that sealings are binding if we live up to our covenants. Just as Elder Oaks expressed hope for above.

 

Here is your situation if you want to keep bringing up your hope for polygamy as if it was doctrine.  1) We have been asked to knock it off.  2) For those without a current sealing to two spouses, it really is just hope that polygamy will return.  "We have moved on."

 

I don't see one word in here about it returning, being "doctrine"...or anything except for cryin' out loud stop talking about it so it becomes a primary conversation of the church...which is exactly what you are doing.

 

 

 

This ended in the Church as an official practice in 1890. It’s now 2009. Why are we still talking about it? It was a practice. It ended. We moved on. If people ask you about polygamy, just acknowledge it was once a practice but not now, and that people shouldn’t confuse any polygamists with our Church. In ordinary conversations, don’t waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during the Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/elder-m-russell-ballard-engaging-without-being-defensive

[halconero]

I hope not. I only want to be married to one man. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

Why do you think the song goes "It's raining men, hallelujah it's raining men"?

[JLHPROF]

Oh yes, the Calmoriah/Juliann tagteam attack...I remember this from the last time I expressed disagreement with eternal polyandry...

 

I'm sorry I have a disagreeing viewpoint.  I don't see any doctrine that allows for eternal polyandry.  I do see sealings happening and like all sealings for men and women they are subject to God's approval and the ratification of the Holy Spirit of promise.  I also see GA's like Elder Oaks refusing to take a firm line on the subject of whether they will be.  If anyone is placing uncertainty on which sealings will be honored it's that kind of statement.

 

For now all we can do is wait and see I suppose, and in that case it probably doesn't help to take a firm stand on the subject, even if I see doctrinal flaws with the concept and others don't.

[K-2]

"The very women that object to a plurality of wives would not object to a plurality of husbands." (Brigham Young, April 16, 1860, The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young 3:1570.)

[Coreyb]

They don't have to. They say that sealings are binding if we live up to our covenants. Just as Elder Oaks expressed hope for above.

Here is your situation if you want to keep bringing up your hope for polygamy as if it was doctrine. 1) We have been asked to knock it off. 2) For those without a current sealing to two spouses, it really is just hope that polygamy will return. "We have moved on."

I don't see one word in here about it returning, being "doctrine"...or anything except for cryin' out loud stop talking about it so it becomes a primary conversation of the church...which is exactly what you are doing.

Polygamy will be with us as long as section 132 remains in our Doctrine and Covenants. We can hide it, distance ourselves from it, and avoid mention of it, but when people ask us they are completely justified in asking because it is our doctrine, and we do ourselves a disservice by denying it. I suppose we could drop it from the canon, and then it would become just a historical quirk that "is behind us", but we would then have to ask God for a revelation on eternal marriage that doesn't include plurality. Edited April 5, 2014 by Coreyb

[Calm]

Oh yes, the Calmoriah/Juliann tagteam attack...I remember this from the last time I expressed disagreement with eternal polyandry...

 

I'm sorry I have a disagreeing viewpoint.  I don't see any doctrine that allows for eternal polyandry.  I do see sealings happening and like all sealings for men and women they are subject to God's approval and the ratification of the Holy Spirit of promise.  I also see GA's like Elder Oaks refusing to take a firm line on the subject of whether they will be.  If anyone is placing uncertainty on which sealings will be honored it's that kind of statement.

 

For now all we can do is wait and see I suppose, and in that case it probably doesn't help to take a firm stand on the subject, even if I see doctrinal flaws with the concept and others don't.

Neither of us are claiming eternal polyandry is doctrinal, I believe...at least not anymore doctrinal than eternal polygyny. Just that the same doctrine, the ordinance itself, is identical given that both men and women are involved in the same ordinance. We are not suggesting anyone has to accept polyandry, just that those who insist that polygyny is an eternal reality realize the implications of what that means for polyandry and not keep acting as if there are two separate ordinances involved with different rules.

Either you respect the ordinance for how it is said and done or you don't.

[JLHPROF]

Neither of us are claiming eternal polyandry is doctrinal, I believe...at least not anymore doctrinal than eternal polygyny. Just that the same doctrine, the ordinance itself, is identical given that both men and women are involved in the same ordinance. We are not suggesting anyone has to accept polyandry, just that those who insist that polygyny is an eternal reality realize the implications of what that means for polyandry and not keep acting as if there are two separate ordinances involved with different rules.

Either you respect the ordinance for how it is said and done or you don't.

 

Oh, I respect the ordinance, but I also have my own firm opinions on the eternal order of the family as taught in scripture and prophetic teachings.  And if for instance I am sealed to 3 women and each of those 3 women are allowed to be sealed to 3 men and each of those 3 men are sealed to 3 more women...well, you see why there is a big doctrinal issue with that kind of family.  It makes mockery of family if nothing else.

 

I accept that the sealing ordinances are performed with validity and authority, (although I consider polyandrous sealings to be due to uncertainty).  But I also don't believe that eternal polyandry can ever be a reality.  So how these two facts can be reconciled I don't know.

 

And as for Juliann's statement that I am dragging up the polygamy issue, I didn't start the thread.  But since eternal polygamous sealings are continuing today to say it is a subject for historians and scholars is simply not true and to ignore the practice is to turn a blind eye to canon.

[Calm]

"well, you see why there is a big doctrinal issue with that kind of family. It makes mockery of family if nothing else."

Not any more to my view than a family consisting of one man and 2, 5, 10, 20 women or more. How is that any less complicated than ten men and ten women? Surely infinite, omniscient beings are capable of figuring out who they are interacting with and when. If the essential family unit is one man and one woman---which is what the sealing is---then either it doesn't matter if one or both of the participants have concurrent sealings with someone else or it does...and if it does, then doctrinally speaking that would only make sense if applied to both men and women because it is the sealing that is either binding or not, not the man or the woman.

Just because you have the cultural view that allows men to collect spouses as long as they don't have to share them with anyone, doesnt mean that God shares that same standard.

Edited April 5, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

 

And as for Juliann's statement that I am dragging up the polygamy issue, I didn't start the thread.  But since eternal polygamous sealings are continuing today to say it is a subject for historians and scholars is simply not true and to ignore the practice is to turn a blind eye to canon.

you are right that eternal polygamous sealings are continuing today, polygamous as in both polygynous and polyandrous, dismissing the occurrence of the second is surely turning a blind eye to canon just as much (assuming you see revealed ordinances as scripture).

[Damien the Leper]

Why do you think the song goes "It's raining men, hallelujah it's raining men"?

 

I'm not gay enough for that nonsense. BTW, you're a smart @$$.

[frank_jessop]

If the justification for polygyny is that a man shouldn't have to choose between two or more women he loved and committed to, then it makes sense to me given that we are now sealing women to multiple men, that a woman won't have to choose between men she loved either.

Has the Church claimed such a justification? The Doctrine and Covenants does not make such a justification either.

All we do know is that there will be plurality of spouses in Heaven. What we know for sure, is that a man can be sealed to multiple with the prior sealings remaining in affect. What we do not have verifiable information on is IF a woman maybe be sealed to more than one man without having the prior sealing "broken".

[Calm]

Has the Church claimed such a justification? The Doctrine and Covenants does not make such a justification either.

All we do know is that there will be plurality of spouses in Heaven. What we know for sure, is that a man can be sealed to multiple with the prior sealings remaining in affect. What we do not have verifiable information on is IF a woman maybe be sealed to more than one man without having the prior sealing "broken".

And we used to have verifiable information that men could be sealed as sons to those not actually their fathers....but we've gone and redone all those sealings with sealings to their actual parents when additional revelation was given.

I prefer to rely on current doctrine as demonstrated to what is being stated and practiced now and that is once people are beyond the need to consider mortal limitations, men and women are being sealed identically to all spouses even in cases where they had already made a choice of whom to be sealed to while living.

[frank_jessop]

And we used to have verifiable information that men could be sealed as sons to those not actually their fathers....but we've gone and redone all those sealings with sealings to their actual parents when additional revelation was given.

I prefer to rely on current doctrine as demonstrated to what is being stated and practiced now and that is once people are beyond the need to consider mortal limitations, men and women are being sealed identically to all spouses even in cases where they had already made a choice of whom to be sealed to while living.

This does not address the "justification" you mentioned. Has the Church, or its leaders, used the justification you mentioned in defense of men having more than one wife in Heaven?

[Calm]

I never claimed that the Church had used such justification.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I hate to resurrect a year old thread, but since I can't make new threads I have to ask. Would anyone on this board actually be willing to live polygamy in the next life?

[VideoGameJunkie]

Here's an interesting article explaining why polygamy may not be part of the Celestial Kingdom. http://www.gregtrimble.com/what-every-mormon-really-needs-to-know-about-polygamy/

[JLHPROF]

I hate to resurrect a year old thread, but since I can't make new threads I have to ask. Would anyone on this board actually be willing to live polygamy in the next life?

 

Yes.  Obedience is the first law of heaven.

Additionally, if we expect to associate with the likes of Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, (and some say Christ) we had better become used to associating with such a family.

And finally, if we do accept that when God commanded polygamy it is a higher law than monogamy (and I know that is debatable) do we really think that Brigham Young would enter into the Celestial Kingdom having lived a higher law than Jesus Christ?

Edited November 2, 2015 by JLHPROF

[carbon dioxide]

I hate to resurrect a year old thread, but since I can't make new threads I have to ask. Would anyone on this board actually be willing to live polygamy in the next life?

Yes as long as the wives live on different worlds about 500 million light years apart.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Carbon, I have heard from a few faithful LDS girls in their 20s say they'd be okay with it in the eternities if God commands it and I've heard many who say they wouldn't be comfortable sharing a husband. I know I wouldn't be happy sharing a wife for eternity so I understand where those opposed are coming from.

[JAHS]

Carbon, I have heard from a few faithful LDS girls in their 20s say they'd be okay with it in the eternities if God commands it and I've heard many who say they wouldn't be comfortable sharing a husband. I know I wouldn't be happy sharing a wife for eternity so I understand where those opposed are coming from.

I would suspect however that anyone worthy enough to be exalted in heaven would be void of any inclination towards jealosy, pride, or selfishness and would therefore accept whatever conditions exist there, including plural eternal wives if necessary.

Edited November 2, 2015 by JAHS

[VideoGameJunkie]

I understand there will be no jealousy for exalted beings, so maybe I'm just thinking with a mortal brain. The topic still lingers on my mind though because I don't know what to expect in the eternities and I don't know which is correct. It's changed over the years so I don't know if anyone knows. It's confusing and I like to imagine what the Celestial Kingdom life will be like and have no idea whether to imagine having 1 companion I hopefully get to sit next to enthroned with exaltation or multiple wives. I dunno, I like to think ahead, so I get confused when thinking about exaltation.

[Calm]

Sure, if God wants to give me more husbands, I must obey, mustn't I? I promise to love them all and play no favorites.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Calm if God wants you to have more husbands I have no problem with you accepting since that is the will of God, but I'm just wondering is it really how the Celestial Kingdom operates?

[Tacenda]

Did anyone hear the news report of LDS swingers? It's happening in several areas of Utah. I'm sorry, but multiple husbands and multiple wives sounds like swinging to me. It's no wonder my testimony crashed and died on the knowledge of JS's polygamy.

[ERayR]

                     

You'll have to ask them. But I don't believe there is much, if any enmity, in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

I don't know Lucifer managed to stir up quite a fuss.