A Polygamy Article Worth Discussing

[escott3564]

I started a thread on this on my private board, and thought I would get thoughts from folks here on it as well.  Most of the apologists here are probably familiar with this article, but it is new to me, and I would love your thoughts and input:

 

http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1987_e_001.pdf

 

The article is written by Eugene England, founder of "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought".

 

Since polygamy was a catalyst for my own faith trial, I found this article both interesting and comforting from a faith standpoint.  One quote from the article which particularly "hit the nail on the head" for me was this:

 

My fifth reason for believing celestial marriage is not polygynous—and my main reason for thinking that we must not simply say, “We can’t possibly imagine what it will be like in heaven and so shouldn’t worry about it”—is that it seems to me, from reflection and from talking with Mormon women, that the devaluation of women inherent in the expectation of polygyny is destructive of their sense of identity and worth now. For instance, the argument considered above, that there must be polygyny because there are more celestial women than men, sounds on the face of it complimentary to women. But if we reflect a bit, it is simply a way of saying that one good man is in some sense the equivalent of more women than one, however “righteous” those women are compared to the average man. Can one man emotionally and sexually satisfy more than one woman? Or is he capable of being “equally yoked” to more than one woman—spiritually or intellectually or manage- rially or whatever? in either case, the implications seem to diminish women, reduc- ing them, in some essential way, to less than full equivalence with men.

 

I thought that this statement did an excellent job of acknowledging what many faithful LDS women who believe in the plan of salvation and have been through the temple have felt for years.

 

What I took away from England's article, and, maybe it is because it closely mirrors my own thoughts on polygamy, is that plural marriage, in the Celestial realm, is not the ideal scenario of achievement in the hereafter.  Monogamous, Celestial marriage, provided by the temple sealing ordinance is the ultimate goal of achievement.

My personal belief (and this is the gospel of Liz, not official LDS doctrine   ) is that those plural families who are sealed for time and all eternity who wish to remain together, will certainly not be pulled apart.  However, the highest order of blessings in marriage come from temple sealing.  Monogamy will be the norm.

[cdowis]

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion with us.

 

The angel and the sword is a powerful visual reminder that JS was very reluctant to engage in this practice, but that the Lord was very serious on this issue. Joseph Smith went through great suffering and persecution because he disagrees with you.

 

Polygamy is the norm for temple sealings.

 

Just my personal opinion, of course.

Edited June 2, 2014 by cdowis

[Bart Burk]

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion with us.

 

The angel and the sword is a powerful visual reminder that JS was very reluctant to engage in this practice, but that the Lord was very serious on this issue. Joseph Smith went through great suffering and persecution because he disagrees with you.

 

Polygamy is the norm for temple sealings.

 

Just my personal opinion, of course.

Are we even sure that the angel and the sword thing isn't apocryphal?  How do we know that really happened?

[jkwilliams]

Are we even sure that the angel and the sword thing isn't apocryphal?  How do we know that really happened?

 

Several sources confirm the angel and sword story:

 

http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/MISCFiles/JSKnewPMwasDifficult.html

[escott3564]

Thanks for the participation, guys! 

 

Cdowis,

 

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion with us.

 

The angel and the sword is a powerful visual reminder that JS was very reluctant to engage in this practice, but that the Lord was very serious on this issue. Joseph Smith went through great suffering and persecution because he disagrees with you.

 

Polygamy is the norm for temple sealings.

 

Just my personal opinion, of course.

 

I think that England brings up a good point in his article that yes, Joseph WAS commanded by God to initiate polygamy as a practice.  However, the Lord's purpose in the practice being initiated was an Abrahamic test, similar to other trials the Lord has asked his people to endure.  Even in section 132 of the D&C, it states in verse 51:

 

...for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

 

Let me clarify what my stance on eternal polygamy is, because I'm not sure you completely understand where I'm coming from.  You'll probably still disagree with me, but here it goes...LOL

 

Yes, I believe that plural marriage exists in the eternities.  My feeling, however, is that it will be the exception rather than the rule.  I have the utmost respect for those who practiced plural marriage.  I have relatives among them.  And certainly these families have earned the right to be together for eternity.

 

However, I contend that ALL of Heavenly Father's blessings in the Celestial Kingdom can be recognized within a monogamous temple marriage.  In other words, the ideal "end game" is not plural marriage, but eternal marriage.

Edited June 2, 2014 by escott3564

[Coreyb]

If temple work is to be done for all the people on earth who didnt recieve the gospel in all ages, and when you take into account all those who have remarried due to death, i think eternal polygamy will be much more widespread than you anticipate

[halconero]

If temple work is to be done for all the people on earth who didnt recieve the gospel in all ages, and when you take into account all those who have remarried due to death, i think eternal polygamy will be much more widespread than you anticipate

 

On the flip side, if we take the belief that all children who have died at a young age will eventually grow and be able to marry themselves, then statistically we have a more even 50-50 split. This may imply that monogamy will be the norm.

[JLHPROF]

I started a thread on this on my private board, and thought I would get thoughts from folks here on it as well.  Most of the apologists here are probably familiar with this article, but it is new to me, and I would love your thoughts and input:

 

http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1987_e_001.pdf

 

The article is written by Eugene England, founder of "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought".

 

Since polygamy was a catalyst for my own faith trial, I found this article both interesting and comforting from a faith standpoint.  One quote from the article which particularly "hit the nail on the head" for me was this:

 

 

 

 

I thought that this statement did an excellent job of acknowledging what many faithful LDS women who believe in the plan of salvation and have been through the temple have felt for years.

 

What I took away from England's article, and, maybe it is because it closely mirrors my own thoughts on polygamy, is that plural marriage, in the Celestial realm, is not the ideal scenario of achievement in the hereafter.  Monogamous, Celestial marriage, provided by the temple sealing ordinance is the ultimate goal of achievement.

My personal belief (and this is the gospel of Liz, not official LDS doctrine   ) is that those plural families who are sealed for time and all eternity who wish to remain together, will certainly not be pulled apart.  However, the highest order of blessings in marriage come from temple sealing.  Monogamy will be the norm.

 

Well, that is certainly not what was taught when polygamy was being practiced.  Brigham went so far as to say there would be no eternal monogamous marriages...but that was then.

[frank_jessop]

Even in section 132 of the D&C, it states in verse 51 [...for I did it, saith the Lord, to prove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.]

what was Emma command to "stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her"?

Although, it would appear that early verses in Section 132 tell provide a different reasoning for plural marriages.

132:28, 32, 34

"I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was. ... Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved. ... God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; ..."

Granted not everyone male or female of the time was required to enter into a polygamous relationship; the Scriptures tell us it is the "Law of [the] Holy Priesthood".

[Coreyb]

On the flip side, if we take the belief that all children who have died at a young age will eventually grow and be able to marry themselves, then statistically we have a more even 50-50 split. This may imply that monogamy will be the norm.

Since when does 50% make something the "norm" anymore than the other 50%

[halconero]

If in the Celestial Kingdom everybody gets a chance at receiving the sealing oridnance to a spouse, and given the assumption that most accept it, a 50:50 ration favours monogamy.

[cdowis]

 

I think that England brings up a good point in his article that yes, Joseph WAS commanded by God to initiate polygamy as a practice.  However, the Lord's purpose in the practice being initiated was an Abrahamic test, similar to other trials the Lord has asked his people to endure.  Even in section 132 of the D&C, it states in verse 51:

 

England and I sometimes find ourselves in disagreement.   In this particular case, it was universal, and this relationship was sealed together for eternity.  Please give us an example of such Abrahamic test continuing throughout eternity.  Are we going to be tested in the celestial kingdom with polygamy?

 

Sorry, this argument just does not make any sense to me.  But I could be wrong.  Perhaps in the celestial kingdom we will suffer such eternal tesgting.  After all, according to this argument, we will be required to terminate these sealings==>> it was ONLY A TEST.

 

 

 

 

Let me clarify what my stance on eternal polygamy is, because I'm not sure you completely understand where I'm coming from.  You'll probably still disagree with me, but here it goes...LOL

 

Yes, I believe that plural marriage exists in the eternities.  My feeling, however, is that it will be the exception rather than the rule.  I have the utmost respect for those who practiced plural marriage.  I have relatives among them.  And certainly these families have earned the right to be together for eternity.

 

However, I contend that ALL of Heavenly Father's blessings in the Celestial Kingdom can be recognized within a monogamous temple marriage.  In other words, the ideal "end game" is not plural marriage, but eternal marriage.

 

I don't know whether we agree or disagree because your last sentence does not make sense to me.  "She is kinda pregnant" argument.  Those who only have a monogamous marriage are cool, but the polygamists -->> what exactly is their state if they are not in the "ideal end game"?  Are they in a special "polygamy prison" for eternity, or do they renounce all of their wives except one, or.....  

 

You left us hanging here on that ideal end game thing.

[jkwilliams]

My fifth reason for believing celestial marriage is not polygynous—and my main reason for thinking that we must not simply say, “We can’t possibly imagine what it will be like in heaven and so shouldn’t worry about it”—is that it seems to me, from reflection and from talking with Mormon women, that the devaluation of women inherent in the expectation of polygyny is destructive of their sense of identity and worth now. For instance, the argument considered above, that there must be polygyny because there are more celestial women than men, sounds on the face of it complimentary to women. But if we reflect a bit, it is simply a way of saying that one good man is in some sense the equivalent of more women than one, however “righteous” those women are compared to the average man. Can one man emotionally and sexually satisfy more than one woman? Or is he capable of being “equally yoked” to more than one woman—spiritually or intellectually or manage- rially or whatever? in either case, the implications seem to diminish women, reduc- ing them, in some essential way, to less than full equivalence with men.

 

This seems right to me. As long as it is one man and multiple women, there is an inherent inequality and diminishing of the worth of a woman. I don't know how to get around that.

[Bobbieaware]

This seems right to me. As long as it is one man and multiple women, there is an inherent inequality and diminishing of the worth of a woman. I don't know how to get around that.

The way you get around it is that if the man with plural wives is filled with a fullness of the pure love of Christ, he will have the capacity to love each wife with perfect love and devotion, so each wife will be convinced of his love and will not in the slightest feel diminished,

[escott3564]

 

 

I think that England brings up a good point in his article that yes, Joseph WAS commanded by God to initiate polygamy as a practice.  However, the Lord's purpose in the practice being initiated was an Abrahamic test, similar to other trials the Lord has asked his people to endure.  Even in section 132 of the D&C, it states in verse 51:

 

England and I sometimes find ourselves in disagreement.   In this particular case, it was universal, and this relationship was sealed together for eternity.  Please give us an example of such Abrahamic test continuing throughout eternity.  Are we going to be tested in the celestial kingdom with polygamy?

 

Sorry, this argument just does not make any sense to me.  But I could be wrong.  Perhaps in the celestial kingdom we will suffer such eternal tesgting.  After all, according to this argument, we will be required to terminate these sealings==>> it was ONLY A TEST.

 

 

 

 

Let me clarify what my stance on eternal polygamy is, because I'm not sure you completely understand where I'm coming from.  You'll probably still disagree with me, but here it goes...LOL

 

Yes, I believe that plural marriage exists in the eternities.  My feeling, however, is that it will be the exception rather than the rule.  I have the utmost respect for those who practiced plural marriage.  I have relatives among them.  And certainly these families have earned the right to be together for eternity.

 

However, I contend that ALL of Heavenly Father's blessings in the Celestial Kingdom can be recognized within a monogamous temple marriage.  In other words, the ideal "end game" is not plural marriage, but eternal marriage.

 

I don't know whether we agree or disagree because your last sentence does not make sense to me.  "She is kinda pregnant" argument.  Those who only have a monogamous marriage are cool, but the polygamists -->> what exactly is their state if they are not in the "ideal end game"?  Are they in a special "polygamy prison" for eternity, or do they renounce all of their wives except one, or.....  

 

You left us hanging here on that ideal end game thing.

 

I'm obviously not explaining myself well.  No, the polygamists are not going to have to renounce their wives.  My point about the "end game" is that plural marriage is not the ultimate goal for everyone.  In other words, unlike Brigham Young's statement in the Journal of Discourses, the highest blessings CAN be achieved through monogamous marriage as long as that marriage is sealed in the temple.

[escott3564]

The way you get around it is that if the man with plural wives is filled with a fullness of the pure love of Christ, he will have the capacity to love each wife with perfect love and devotion, so each wife will be convinced of his love and will not in the slightest feel diminished,

So a woman does not have the capacity to have that same fullness of the pure love of Christ to provide to more than one husband?

[frank_jessop]

So a woman does not have the capacity to have that same fullness of the pure love of Christ to provide to more than one husband?

Section 132 contains at least a verse which could be interpreted as providing for a woman to have more than husband.

Also, what is your take on section 132:28, 32, & 34, which describe the "law of my Holy Priesthood"?

[jkwilliams]

The way you get around it is that if the man with plural wives is filled with a fullness of the pure love of Christ, he will have the capacity to love each wife with perfect love and devotion, so each wife will be convinced of his love and will not in the slightest feel diminished,

The capacity of a man to love is not the issue.

[teddyaware]

So a woman does not have the capacity to have that same fullness of the pure love of Christ to provide to more than one husband?

Perhaps the pure love of Christ will enable each plural wife to love the husband's other wives without feeling jealous, unequal or diminished.

[BCSpace]

Assuming both plural and monogamous marriage exist in the highest Celestial degree, is one better than the other?  Or is it much like the word of wisdom and based on the capacity of the weakest of Saints; if you can, fine, if you can't, fine?

[Bobbieaware]

The capacity of a man to love is not the issue.

It had better be the issue! After all, Joseph, Brigham and lots of other brethren have many plural wives to whom they are sealed for eternity, and I hope none of those good women will ever feel unequal or diminished after they're glorified with their husband in the celestial kingdom.

[JLHPROF]

It had better be the issue! After all, Joseph, Brigham and lots of other brethren have many plural wives to whom they are sealed for eternity, and I hope none of those good women will ever feel unequal or diminished after they're glorified with their husband in the celestial kingdom.

 

The Ultimatum of Human Life - Eliza R. Snow Smith Young

Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been

Subject to sorrow in a world of sin:

Through long gradation He arose to be

Clothed with the Godhead's might and majesty.

And what to Him in His probative sphere,

Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?

Whatever His offices and callings were,

He magnified them with assiduous care:

By His obedience He obtained the place

Of God and Father of this human race.

Obedience will the same bright garland weave,

As it has done for your great Mother, Eve,

For all Her daughters on earth, who will

All My requirements sacredly fulfil.

And what to Eve, though in Her mortal life,

She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife?

What did She care, in Her lowest state,

Whether by fools, considered small, or great?

'Twas all the same with Her - She'd proved Her worth -

She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth  

 

 

Eventually we will have a completely different perspective.  I sincerely doubt our Heavenly Mother feels in any way diminished, no matter how many wives our Heavenly Father has.

Edited June 2, 2014 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

Perhaps the pure love of Christ will enable each plural wife to love the husband's other wives without feeling jealous, unequal or diminished.

And perhaps the pure love of Christ will enable each plural husband to love the wife's other husbands without feeling jealous, unequal or diminished. There is nothing other than tradition upholding a male only version of polygamy yet there is a scripture allowing for a woman to "be with another man."   If monogamy goes out the door for some bizarre reason, male privilege goes right out with it.  It is a wake up and smell the coffee sort of thing.

[juliann]

 

 

 

Eventually we will have a completely different perspective.  I sincerely doubt our Heavenly Mother feels in any way diminished, no matter how many wives our Heavenly Father has.

I sincerely doubt our Heavenly Father feels in any way diminished, no matter how many husbands our Heavenly Mother has. (Which may go further to explain her invisibility than any of the nonsense theories do.)

 

And if this sounds more outlandish than your version, it is time to do some serious thinking about what this says about how women are devalued by too many Mormons.  And no...no one gets to pretend that polygyny does not devalue women.

[teddyaware]

And perhaps the pure love of Christ will enable each plural husband to love the wife's other husbands without feeling jealous, unequal or diminished. There is nothing other than tradition upholding a male only version of polygamy yet there is a scripture allowing for a woman to "be with another man."   If monogamy goes out the door for some bizarre reason, male privilege goes right out with it.  It is a wake up and smell the coffee sort of thing.

None of this alters the fact that the early brethren practiced polygamy.