A Polygamy Article Worth Discussing

[Palerider]

I'm going to have to stick with the Savior's comments regarding this issue:

 

Luke 20: 34-36

 

"And Jesus answering said unto them, the children of this world marry and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage. Neither can they die anymore for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

[juliann]

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.

This is the 21st century and there no longer needs be doubt about who fathered a child. They are even going back and testing JS descendants. And I suspect our DNA methods seem primitive to celestial conditions. This also begs the question of creation. This assumes that heavenly parentage relies on mortal bodies. Will we even have DNA?  Will birth be a mortal process that is dependent on blood?  Is a woman's glorified body a pregnant body for eternity?  The scriptural record only shows divine creation through words not bodies. Eve giving birth was a consequence of entering mortality, there was no physical childbearing before they were cast out. There are different theories of what spirits and intelligences are...we seem to have taken up one that didn't come from JS. But the point is they are very sketchy theories that quickly crumble when we insert mortal circumstances into them.

 

As for polygyny providing "good men"...what difference did that make when those good men weren't good fathers by virtue of not being in the home as we expect today? Or if they couldn't provide for their many families?  It begs the question of what "good" is.  What they were doing defies the Proclamation on the Family. There really is no way to circumvent that.

 

I am unaware of any contemporary doctrine withholding heaven from women....black women maybe.

[Ahab]

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.

I believe the one man to one woman marriage relationship will be not only the more common type of marriage relationship but also the most preferred type, since otherwise there would be some times when either the man or woman would not be available to the other, even though there may be another man or woman the other could be with during that time. Sharing involves availability, in other words, and not being available at the same time, sometimes, is and would be a downside to a shared relationship.

For those who haven't tried dating someone who is dating someone else at the same time, while also living a busy life, you might need to try it to know what I mean.

[frank_jessop]

In my opinion it is poor scholarship to cherry-pick a phrase and that cherry-picked phrase a blanket statement for all.

Verily, I say unto you [presumably Joseph Smith and/or Emma Smith]: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, ... that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; 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.

Some issues arise with trying to take a phrase from verse 51 and apply it to the entire practice of plural marriage. 1. What was Joseph commanded to offer to Emma?2. Where there other people to be involved with what Joseph was commanded to offer Emma.3. Who are the "all" that were tested? The heading for Section 132 includes "51–57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true;". Without more context of verse 51 (which is a direct command and instruct to Emma Smith and probably Joseph Smith) it is, in my opinion, an error to cherry-pick a phrase out of the verse - which is directed as at least one person and to include some unknown persons and unknown practice/command - and apply it as a blanket statement.

[juliann]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

We have talked with bishops....one on this board and women are being sealed to second husbands by special permission.  We have thought about it, we did get facts and we did talk with bishops.  Perhaps that will help you understand that these worn out appeals to tradition are tiresome and inaccurate.

[cdowis]

We have talked with bishops....one on this board and women are being sealed to second husbands by special permission. 

 

You need to clarify your discussion with the bishop == 

 

1. This individual is living sister.

 

2. Whether their sealing to the first husband was still in effect when she got sealed to the second husband, or did that "special permission" require the cancellation of the sealing to the first husband, as approved by the First Presy.  

 

You really need to get clarification with a temple president as well as with your bishop.  There was clearly a miscommunication here.

 

"Does this sealing to a second husband require the cancellation of the sealing to the first husband?"

 

That is the case, unless the policy has changed within the past few years.

Edited June 7, 2014 by cdowis

[Calm]

Yes, the sealing to the first husband stayed intact at the same time as the second sealing was done for a living sister. There was no miscommunication.

They are making exceptions. The practice appears to be spreading by word of mouth. It is not changed in written policy yet.

Edited June 7, 2014 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

Thanks.  

 

It does imply a change in doctrine.  But, on second thought,  it is more likely to be a procedural change to reflect the policy for vicarious sealings.

 

I had always wondered why the policy was different for living vs vicarious sealings.  In both cases,  they will eventually have to make a choice between the two husbands.

 

Let me look into it.

Edited June 7, 2014 by cdowis

[Calm]

And yet they removed that condition from the policy in the handbook. It no longer stated there will have to be a choice.

[changed]

  Monogamous, Celestial marriage, provided by the temple sealing ordinance is the ultimate goal of achievement.

Is it?  I always thought the ultimate goal of achievement was to become as God is... at some point women need to define themselves as something other than "wife".  Don't get me wrong, marriage is great, but interdependence is a much better relationship than dependence ... 

Edited June 7, 2014 by changed

[juliann]

Thanks.  

 

It does imply a change in doctrine.  But, on second thought,  it is more likely to be a procedural change to reflect the policy for vicarious sealings.

 

I had always wondered why the policy was different for living vs vicarious sealings.  In both cases,  they will eventually have to make a choice between the two husbands.

 

Let me look into it.

Sealing would be the "doctrine".  Policies and procedures have been modified since it began...sometimes drastically.  "Vicarious", i.e., proxy  sealings are just as valid as live sealings.  Unless you don't consider sealings doctrinal.

[cdowis]

Sealing would be the "doctrine".  Policies and procedures have been modified since it began...sometimes drastically.  "Vicarious", i.e., proxy  sealings are just as valid as live sealings.  Unless you don't consider sealings doctrinal.

 

Like baptism, sealing is an ordinance.  We talked about that extensively in my last priesthood meeting.

 

And like baptism, sealing is only validated (justified) by the Holy Spirit, so a sealing can occur but not be justified/validated.  This would, for example, be the case when there was a mistake in sealing a parent to child, but to the incorrect parent.  Happens all the time due to errors in research or documentation.

 

In the case of multiple husbands, only one of the sealings would be valid.

Edited June 8, 2014 by cdowis

[escott3564]

In the case of multiple husbands, only one of the sealings would be valid.

 

You can't be certain of that.

[escott3564]

Is it?  I always thought the ultimate goal of achievement was to become as God is... at some point women need to define themselves as something other than "wife".  Don't get me wrong, marriage is great, but interdependence is a much better relationship than dependence ... 

I completely agree with you on this.  My reference to the ultimate goal of achievement had to do with the ultimate goal as far as marriage was concerned.  In other words, I think there is good reason why the Journal of Discourses is not considered to be official doctrine.  I believe that Brigham Young was misguided when he stated that plural marriage was the highest form of marriage in the Celestial kingdom.

[changed]

I completely agree with you on this.  My reference to the ultimate goal of achievement had to do with the ultimate goal as far as marriage was concerned.  In other words, I think there is good reason why the Journal of Discourses is not considered to be official doctrine.  I believe that Brigham Young was misguided when he stated that plural marriage was the highest form of marriage in the Celestial kingdom.

I personally believe that polygamy is symbolic of Mary, a handmaid, being the mother Jesus... and perhaps polyandry as symbolic of Joseph being the step-father of Jesus.  I know there is only one plan of salvation, there is no other way, but I am unclear on if there will be other saviors for other worlds provided in the same way?  It does seem necessary for the plan of salvation though, and does entail the highest love, the greatest sacrifice, and so the highest form of marriage.  

I think polygamy also forces the women involved to define themselves on something other than being someone's wife, it would make you a little less attached, and a little more independent, no?  

Edited June 8, 2014 by changed

[Calm]

 

In the case of multiple husbands, only one of the sealings would be valid.

Assuming what is being debated does not make an argument.

[Calm]

I think polygamy also forces the women involved to define themselves on something other than being someone's wife, it would make you a little less attached, and a little more independent, no?

Depends on the culture.

[juliann]

Like baptism, sealing is an ordinance.  We talked about that extensively in my last priesthood meeting.

 

And like baptism, sealing is only validated (justified) by the Holy Spirit, so a sealing can occur but not be justified/validated.  This would, for example, be the case when there was a mistake in sealing a parent to child, but to the incorrect parent.  Happens all the time due to errors in research or documentation.

 

In the case of multiple husbands, only one of the sealings would be valid.

So what you are saying is that you know when the Holy Spirit "validates" other people's sealings.   I think there is probably a big issue with what we call stewardship in this self-assignment.

 

In other words, you have absolutely no idea what sealings are valid aside from those within your stewardship.  Your assumption has been removed from the CHI.

 

 

I think polygamy also forces the women involved to define themselves on something other than being someone's wife, it would make you a little less attached, and a little more independent, no?  

Why would anyone want that? It is against the Proclamation on the Family and everything the church teaches...and if the goal is to be unattached and independent, not getting married at all would be the perfect solution. (And it is the ability to get a job with equal pay that makes women "independent".)

[frank_jessop]

Plural marriage is "The Law of The Holy Priesthood" (D&C 132:28). And despite Hudson's claim that plural marriage is a "Abrahamic Test"; Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham "Because this was the law." (D&C 132:34)

I think it is detrimental to create and promote reasons for God.

In fact, I believe there is some instruction from an Apostle about creating reasons for what and why God has commanded.

Edited June 8, 2014 by frank_jessop

[changed]

Depends on the culture.

 

 

Why would anyone want that? It is against the Proclamation on the Family and everything the church teaches...and if the goal is to be unattached and independent, not getting married at all would be the perfect solution. (And it is the ability to get a job with equal pay that makes women "independent".)

The person we are supposed to be the closest to is God, God has certainly given us independence.  Free will is independence, Satan's plan was one of dependence.  If you love something, let them go.  God let us go when we came to earth - so we can learn to walk on our own two feet, so we can learn to be independent.   I think it is important to not be attached/controlling/dependent - but to let everyone, including yourself, be free.  The entire war in heaven and on Earth is over freedom.   

I thought you agreed with me that interdependent was better than dependent... interdependent comes after someone is already independent - that you are not together for financial support, or any sort of dependency, is a more mature relationship I think....

I am female, I am not a feminist, I do not support OW, I was a stay-at-home mom while my children were all at home, but now that they are all in school I have gone back to work with a schedule that is compatible with my children's school.  I realize how important it is to be at home when the kids are, but think it is good for women to go back to work when they are no longer needed at home.  Working allows women to better understand what their husbands experience, allowing you to become closer in my opinion.  Work is also one of the things that allows you to have a personal identity, keeps you actively engaged in your community, allows you to better communicate and relate with others outside of the church, and of coarse gives you more financial stability.  The church does not tell women not to work, they just suggest putting kids first - being at home when the kids are home.  

Many of the women highlighted on Mormon.org work.

Many of the women in church leadership positions work.

The LDS church does not encourage women to stay at home for their entire lives.

 

Edited June 9, 2014 by changed

[changed]

Plural marriage is "The Law of The Holy Priesthood" (D&C 132:28). And despite Hudson's claim that plural marriage is a "Abrahamic Test"; Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham "Because this was the law." (D&C 132:34)

I think it is detrimental to create and promote reasons for God.

In fact, I believe there is some instruction from an Apostle about creating reasons for what and why God has commanded.

It's also called the "law of Sarah" (DC132)

Who does Abraham and Isaac represent?  Who does Sarah represent?  Abraham was let off at the last minute, he did not actually kill his son... Sarah was also let off at the last minute and did not have to rely on a handmaid..... but for our Heavenly Parents, we are plainly told Mary's title, she is the handmaid of the Lord, and we all know what a handmaid is.

Here's an LDS.org article on it if you would like..

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/10/one-thing-needful-becoming-women-of-greater-faith-in-christ?lang=eng&query=%22Heavenly+Mother%22

 

[frank_jessop]

It's also called the "law of Sarah" (DC132)

Call for reference.

You are confusing Sarah accepting and administering to Abraham i.e. Law of Sarah;

with

Having plural wives i.e. Law of [the] Holy Priesthood.

Edited June 9, 2014 by frank_jessop

[changed]

Call for reference.

You are confusing Sarah accepting and administering to Abraham i.e. Law of Sarah;

with

Having plural wives i.e. Law of [the] Holy Priesthood.

DC132 is on polygamy, administering to Abraham was about Hagar.  

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.64-65?lang=eng

 58–66, Laws governing plural marriage are set forth.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take ^aHagar to wife.

 

Edited June 9, 2014 by changed

[frank_jessop]

The call for references still stands. Please show that "law of Sarah" is the same thing as "Law of [the] Holy Priesthood"

You need to read verse 64 an 65 in conjunction with other. If the wife does not accept and administer (Law of Sarah) an additional wife to her husband (Law of [the] Holy Priesthood), the wife will be destroyed and the husband is free to seek out an additional wife at his will and pleasure.

Edited June 9, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Kaleb Webb]

Jacob 2:27-30 seems to indicate that monogamy is preferred over polygyny.