A Polygamy Article Worth Discussing

[juliann]

Thanks for the participation, guys! 

 

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:

 

 

 

 

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.

Valerie Hudson says the same thing. She spoke at the FAIR conference about monogamy as the norm and compared Abraham's sacrifice, which is mentioned in 132, to the women's situation. In other words, a ram would also be provided for them.  Just as Abraham is not expected to sacrifice his son for eternity, women are not expected to sacrifice themselves for eternity.  You will like her take on this.

 

It is very difficult for many men to give up on their reward of 72 virgins, so to speak, and I don't think they can keep it up forever with no support from leaders. And there is none, which is why they have to dispense with living prophets and go back to dead prophets.  It is not a tenable position.  I have asked one question for years and years and not one polygyny advocate has responded.  It is very simple.

 

Produce one quote from a prophet in the current century saying men's wives will be handed over to other more righteous men so they can have mulitple wives. (Remember, those who appeal to BY, he mentioned 999 wives. That is a lot of wimminz for those few lucky menz that have to come from somewhere!)   Fortunately, I belong to a church of living prophets.

 

 

 

Polygamy is the norm for temple sealings.

 

Just my personal opinion, of course.

 

  Uh, not until they are all living as married in the same time and approximate place. But if you mean men and women are being sealed to serial spouses, you are of course correct.

[juliann]

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

Or that early sistren practiced polyandry.

[JLHPROF]

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.)

 

Oh, for goodness sake.  This example of feminism run amuck is clearly not based in revealed doctrine and is getting old.

 

Or that early sistren practiced polyandry.

 

1. No early sisters practiced eternal polyandry.

2. Even if the brethren today are allowing women to be sealed to more than one man for eternity, there has never once in all of mormonism been a revelation or authorized teaching allowing for a woman to have more than one eternal companion.  It has always been a sort it out in the next life allowance.

3. The ordinances as revealed to the prophet Joseph clearly show polygyny as having eternal equivalence.  Polyandry was never viewed as anything more than temporal.

 

Can we at least pretend that we are basing our view points in scripture, prophetic teachings, doctrinal precedence and not on a late 20th Century POV wishlist for a non-existent sameness?   It's an imaginary world.

 

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.

 

 

 It is not tradition, it is revelation and scripture.  D&C 132 for instance.  Not to mention the revelations to John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff in the late 1800s.  Oh, and the temple ceremonies as established by Joseph Smith (before all the offensive anti-female aspects were removed).  And scriptural precedent in both the OT and BOM.  And if you believe the early church leaders, the example of Christ himself.

Edited June 3, 2014 by JLHPROF

[juliann]

Oh, for goodness sake.  This example of feminism run amuck is clearly not based in revealed doctrine and is getting old.

 

 

1. No early sisters practiced eternal polyandry.

2. Even if the brethren today are allowing women to be sealed to more than one man for eternity, there has never once in all of mormonism been a revelation or authorized teaching allowing for a woman to have more than one eternal companion.  It has always been a sort it out in the next life allowance.

3. The ordinances as revealed to the prophet Joseph clearly show polygyny as having eternal equivalence.  Polyandry was never viewed as anything more than temporal.

 

Can we at least pretend that we are basing our view points in scripture, prophetic teachings, doctrinal precedence and not on a late 20th Century POV wishlist for a non-existent sameness?   It's an imaginary world.

 

 

 

 It is not tradition, it is revelation and scripture.  D&C 132 for instance.  Not to mention the revelations to John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff in the late 1800s.  Oh, and the temple ceremonies as established by Joseph Smith (before all the offensive anti-female aspects were removed).  And scriptural precedent in both the OT and BOM.  And if you believe the early church leaders, the example of Christ himself.

Isn't it interesting that when the same things you say...that only benefit you as a man...are turned around to benefit women you become angry?  There is no more support for what you are constructing than there is for claiming blacks will be denied priesthood in the eternities because the priesthood ban was "the norm". The two Manifestos trump your speculation. Modern prophets trump your speculation.

 

You are dead wrong women were not practicing polyandry.  That is why you have to start adding qualifiers such as "eternal" polyandry. You miss the irony that you have placed polyandry in the same situation as polygyny because it is just as likely it is not "eternal" either. Yet it still was done in mortality. You are also dead wrong that polyandry is not scriptural.

 

This thinking cannot be maintained any longer.  You are in the situation that if you advocate for polygyny, you will end up advocating for polyandry because as it was practiced, they go together.  It is all or nothing. You can pick....you just can't kick women to the curb because it offends your sensibilities. 

[Calm]

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 allow a husband to love all the other husbands his wife is sealed to eternally.

[sunstoned]

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.

I agree.  If there is polygamy and/or polandrary in the CK, it will not be subject to 19th century American gender biasis.  It should, and probably will be administered equally. 

[Calm]

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.

Not surprising our thought runs along the same line.

One should also consider it may be the pure love of Christ with the lack of jealousy or possessiveness but only a desire to see the joy of those you love maximised that wiil allow men and women to see their sealed spouse paired with another who also loves them with such magnitude.

True charity means IMO putting the welfare of the loved one over one's own desires AND being as joyous about that solution as one that would benefit oneself.

[cdowis]

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.

 

Give it more thought.  It is quite simple ==>>

 

The woman makes a conscious choice whether she will enter into a polygamous relationship, and the first wife has consent on those relationships.

[cdowis]

And allow a husband to love all the other husbands his wife is sealed to eternally.

Polyandry is not a doctrine of the Restored Gospel, but a fragment of the imagination.  We had a lengthy discussion on that subject.

[Calm]

So all those sealings taking place now are just a figment of my imagination? I have a very strong imagination I guess.

Sometimes doctrine follows the practice. Adam sacrificed as commanded by God before knowing the doctrine behind that sacrifice.

At this point we are instructed to seal women to all they have been married to in their mortal lives (and some are even being sealed in multiples before dying). This may have been changed due to revelation from God and if so rates as a commandment.

The Church was involved in sealing families together before the revelation explaining why (and replacing the Law of Adoption) was given. Just because there is no specific doctrine that has been identified across the pulpit as relating to polyandry does not rule these current sealing practices as wrong or not eternal any less than the sealings of men are eternal. After all every sealing involves a man and a woman...how could the sealing be less effective for one than the other?

Think about it. A man has been sealed to three women in his life and he is confident that each of those marriages is eternal. He then dies and his widow is then sealed to another man (whether in this life or the next doesn't matter according to doctrine). Suddenly does that last sealing mean something else, is it suddenly not so eternal as it once was? If something being eternal means no chance of it changing, how can it therefore be changed when another eternal sealing is added to the mix?

Edited June 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

Give it more thought.  It is quite simple ==>>

 

The woman makes a conscious choice whether she will enter into a polygamous relationship, and the first wife has consent on those relationships.

 

It's still unequal, whether people consent to the inequality or not.

[juliann]

Polyandry is not a doctrine of the Restored Gospel, but a fragment of the imagination.  We had a lengthy discussion on that subject.

So those married women only imagined they also married Joseph and Brigham? And everyone around them were experiencing a group hallucination? Seriously?? 

[juliann]

Give it more thought.  It is quite simple ==>>

 

The woman makes a conscious choice whether she will enter into a polygamous relationship, and the first wife has consent on those relationships.

According to scripture, and what happened, is that the first wife only had to be given the opportunity to say yes, which didn't matter anyway since no always meant yes. The wife would be at fault for saying no and any obligation to get her approval was dissolved.

 

And in real life there are too many instances where the husband just did whatever.

 

Would you prefer being the first husband or the second? It seems to me that it is time for the men to step up and refine their jealousies and learn to love their brother husbands.

[readstoomuch]

I don`t think any one really knows how it will be.  How are spirit children created?  In natural selection the female takes on the burden of  carrying the embryo to fruition.  In mammals this is quite a lengthy process as opposed to other orders within the animal kingdom.  It was also easier to trace paternity with a patriarchal system than a matriarchal system.  Polyandry is not advantageous as far as number of beings that can be procreated.  I think the women`s ability to carry, care for and teach children has allowed for the complexity of human development.  How that process goes in heaven I don`t know, but boy it still must be complex.  

 

Polyandry was practiced in some certain instances, especially with Joseph Smith.  There seemed to be the understanding that the woman was estranged or separated from their first husband.  One woman that Brigham Young was sealed to as described in John Turner`s book would`t have "relations" with her husband after she was sealed for eternity to Brigham Young.  The husband wrote to Brigham to see if his wife could be persuaded that such was okay.  So, it would be a mistake to say that polyandry was never practiced, though quite rare overall.  

 

Finally, I liked the Eugene England quote, as I like most quotes from Eugene England.  

[Mystery Meat]

I have given this issue little thought and have decided that any of the following are possible based on scripture:

 

1. In eternity there will be polygamy, but not polyandry. 

 

I am uncomfortable with this, but I know that God is perfect so I don't worry about it now. 

 

2. In eternity there will be polygamy and polyandry.

 

I am uncomfortable with this, but I know that God is perfect so I don't worry about it now.

 

If it was only polyandry...

 

I am uncomfortable with this, but I know that God is perfect so I don't worry about it now.

 

I my stupid opinion, I think part of the test is getting to the point where you trust God, NO MATTER what the outcome will be. And if you couldn't tolerate any of the above even if God is perfect, I think that is a problem for you.

[Calm]

One woman that Brigham Young was sealed to as described in John Turner`s book would`t have "relations" with her husband after she was sealed for eternity to Brigham Young.  The husband wrote to Brigham to see if his wife could be persuaded that such was okay.

what was his answer?

[readstoomuch]

That she could. She had nagged him for years and he turned her down, but agreed finally on eternity only. He had other problems with her.

[readstoomuch]

That she could. She had nagged him for years and he turned her down, but agreed finally on eternity only. He had other problems with her.

[escott3564]

Valerie Hudson says the same thing. She spoke at the FAIR conference about monogamy as the norm and compared Abraham's sacrifice, which is mentioned in 132, to the women's situation. In other words, a ram would also be provided for them.  Just as Abraham is not expected to sacrifice his son for eternity, women are not expected to sacrifice themselves for eternity.  You will like her take on this.

 

It is very difficult for many men to give up on their reward of 72 virgins, so to speak, and I don't think they can keep it up forever with no support from leaders. And there is none, which is why they have to dispense with living prophets and go back to dead prophets.  It is not a tenable position.  I have asked one question for years and years and not one polygyny advocate has responded.  It is very simple.

 

Produce one quote from a prophet in the current century saying men's wives will be handed over to other more righteous men so they can have mulitple wives. (Remember, those who appeal to BY, he mentioned 999 wives. That is a lot of wimminz for those few lucky menz that have to come from somewhere!)   Fortunately, I belong to a church of living prophets.

 

 

  Uh, not until they are all living as married in the same time and approximate place. But if you mean men and women are being sealed to serial spouses, you are of course correct.

 

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Jullian! 

 

It's really cool that you and I see eye to eye on this.  I was beginning to think that no one really understood what I was getting at.  Thanks for the reference of Valerie Hudson.  I had not heard of her before.  Does she have some books or articles as well as talks at FAIR?  I would love to read some of her materials.

 

Thanks again!  (Oh, and just another additional thank you for re-inviting me to your board.  *HUGS*)

[Traela]

First of all, I'd like to throw out that there is nothing sexist in preferring polygyny to polyandry, if you are coming from a child-centered point of view. Children have a right to know who their parents are. From a biological standpoint, the only form of polygamy that provides that is one husband, multiple wives.

That being said, polygamy as Abrahamic test makes sense, especially when taking into account the Book of Mormon's take on polygamy. It also squares with my view, that polygyny was a necessary step in granting equality to women. In the nineteenth century, women generally needed to be married in order to have any sort of financial stability or social status. Unfortunately, many women were forced to choose between marriage to a bad man, or no marriage at all. Polygyny enlarged the pool of eligible, good men. I can think of one ancestress in particular whose life would have been better if polygamy had been an option.

There is also theological equality. At the time, it was still a cultural belief, if not actual doctrine, among most Christians that a single man could go to heaven, but not a single woman. Polygyny turned this on its head, stating that not only did men have to be married, but that they had to have multiple wives. Not only that, women were expected to hold out for a worthy priesthood holder, even if he happened to already be married.

[jkwilliams]

First of all, I'd like to throw out that there is nothing sexist in preferring polygyny to polyandry, if you are coming from a child-centered point of view. Children have a right to know who their parents are. From a biological standpoint, the only form of polygamy that provides that is one husband, multiple wives.

That's not the case anymore with today's technology. It's relatively simple to determine paternity.

That being said, polygamy as Abrahamic test makes sense, especially when taking into account the Book of Mormon's take on polygamy. It also squares with my view, that polygyny was a necessary step in granting equality to women. In the nineteenth century, women generally needed to be married in order to have any sort of financial stability or social status. Unfortunately, many women were forced to choose between marriage to a bad man, or no marriage at all. Polygyny enlarged the pool of eligible, good men. I can think of one ancestress in particular whose life would have been better if polygamy had been an option.

You make it sound as if there was a shortage of decent men back then. And of course, there are plenty of stories of polygamous husbands who were not exactly good husbands.

There is also theological equality. At the time, it was still a cultural belief, if not actual doctrine, among most Christians that a single man could go to heaven, but not a single woman. Polygyny turned this on its head, stating that not only did men have to be married, but that they had to have multiple wives. Not only that, women were expected to hold out for a worthy priesthood holder, even if he happened to already be married.

CFR on there being a "cultural belief" among Latter-day Saints that only men could go to heaven if they were single. Section 132 would still disabuse people of that notion even if we discard the parts about plural marriage.

[escott3564]

CFR on there being a "cultural belief" among Latter-day Saints that only men could go to heaven if they were single. Section 132 would still disabuse people of that notion even if we discard the parts about plural marriage.

 

I don't think that he meant that this was a cultural belief among LDS, but rather other Christians.  It would still be interesting where he found his source, though.

 

That being said, polygamy as Abrahamic test makes sense, especially when taking into account the Book of Mormon's take on polygamy. It also squares with my view, that polygyny was a necessary step in granting equality to women. In the nineteenth century, women generally needed to be married in order to have any sort of financial stability or social status. Unfortunately, many women were forced to choose between marriage to a bad man, or no marriage at all. Polygyny enlarged the pool of eligible, good men. I can think of one ancestress in particular whose life would have been better if polygamy had been an option.

 

My understanding is that polygyny was more about "rewarding the few".  Church leaders such as prophets, apostles, bishops, etc. were entitled to have multiple wives.  The more prestigious the Church calling, the more wives a person tended to have.  The women during that time were also caught up in the social climbing scale of this to a degree.  If you were the wife of a prophet, you had a higher social status than if you were the wife of a Sunday School teacher.  This is an area that many men today overlook when talking about polygamy.  If polygamy was enacted the way it was during the Brigham Young era, there would actually be a lot of single male members of the Church.  Young daughters would be encouraged by their families to set their sights on being the 3rd wife of a bishop as opposed to being the first wife of a returned missionary.  Food for thought. 

[juliann]

 

It's really cool that you and I see eye to eye on this.  I was beginning to think that no one really understood what I was getting at.  Thanks for the reference of Valerie Hudson.  I had not heard of her before.  Does she have some books or articles as well as talks at FAIR?  I would love to read some of her materials.

 

She has multiple articles here http://squaretwo.org/   Here are her FairMormon talks http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2011-fair-conference/2011-a-reconciliation-of-polygamy   http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-two-trees

 

She has a book out on the Two Trees but I don't recall the name. She is a staunch support of temple marriage being the only way to make women equal which has created a lot of criticism from the liberal feminists. She has been very unfairly attacked and maligned by them. I think the Kate Kellys may be learning a lesson about alienating the moderates, however. What makes this particularly egregious is that Hudson (professionally she uses Cassler) is the most accomplished and published feminist of them all. She was named one of the top 100 thinkers in the US a few years ago. She published the book about the shortage of men in China causing violence. She is an international expert on women's rights and is currently in the George Bush Chair at A&M.  She is working on a book called the Hillary Doctrine....Hillary refused to sit at negotiating tables without women since she did not consider it a valid negotiation without half the population represented. Valerie was also dismissive of attempts to bring democracy to countries that didn't oppressed half their population...that is not democracy.  She did a lecture on these things at the Miller-Eccles study group and the more radical feminists can't hold a candle to her. But when writing on Mormonism, she brings in conservative LDS belief (while decrying how limited women are in the church) so they have been very hostile. It is bizarre.

 

And it is always a treat to see you here if I'm in a posting spurt.

[mnn727]

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?

 

 

 

I don't see why not, of course there would come some number of wives that would be too many for one man to emotionally and sexually satisfy, but I see no reason that that number would be 1.

[cdowis]

So all those sealings taking place now are just a figment of my imagination? I have a very strong imagination I guess.

 

I think your interpretation of the meaning of those sealings is the result of a flight of fantasy.  There are those who ignore the doctrinal and historical context of those sealings.  T

Sometimes doctrine follows the practice. Adam sacrificed as commanded by God before knowing the doctrine behind that sacrifice.

 

At this point we are instructed to seal women to all they have been married to in their mortal lives (and some are even being sealed in multiples before dying). This may have been changed due to revelation from God and if so rates as a commandment.

 

That policy is specifically for vicarious work for a woman who had multiple marriages.  It used to be that she was only sealed to her first husband, but that was changed to have her sealed to all of her spouses.  This policy does NOT apply to living ordinances.  The temples are very careful when doing living sealings, husband to wife, and even child to parent.  ( I am going to be sealed to my deceased parents, but I have to go through special paperwork and make a special appointment to have this done.)

 

Recently a widow who was sealed to her first husband wanted to be sealed to her second husband.  She was advised that this would require a decision by the First Presidency to cancel the sealing to the first husband.  My mother-in-law was a widow, and also re-married.  It was made quite clear that she could only be sealed to one husband.  Indeed they were given a CIVIL marriage in the temple (this policy was also changed -- no more civil marriages in the temple)

 

May I suggest that you think about it, and get the facts.  Go talk with your bishop or temple president and they will help you understand.

 

 

Edited June 3, 2014 by cdowis