Calm Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) For those who have a hard time understanding why those who don't want polygamy to be a possibility and dismiss their confusion and resistance as 'if you don't accept it as a principle you won't be exalted anyway so you won't have to worry about it', perhaps it would help to imagine God requiring you to accept something completely foreign to your current nature in order to achieve what is the deepest desire of your heart, to live with him again in exaltation in order to feel what it is like to have two very strong, but contradictory desires.A woman loves her husband dearly and wants to be with him eternally, but plural marriage just feels wrong to her...how can we be one if there is another in my husband's mind who he thinks of in the same way? How can he give all of himself to me when he has given all of himself to another. Reassurance that she will never be coerced into a plural marriage is not reassuring if the other options are no marriage at all (because she refuses to accept it as a commandment) or if her husband desires to participate and marries another woman, then her choice amounts in her mind at this time to chosing her ideal love and having to live in a diminished relationship with the man she loves most or losing that relationship completely and instead choosing the ideal relationship of being married monogamously but to a total stranger that she has no idea about or knowledge as to why God would chose him for her.To dismiss concerns by saying the other just has to trust God, he knows what will make everyone happiest while at the same time talking about as if settled for eternity alleged rules of how we are to have plural relationships that the other sees as inherently untrustworthy because of what they have been taught what the eternal nature of the relationship is meant to be (such as in the Family Proclamation) and then blaming them for not being faithful enough to trust God....I personally don't understand why some women and men are comfortable with just dismissing this with what amount to "I don't get it so there is no reason for anyone else to be troubled by it, just accept it...or else (lose your exaltation)". Asking someone to trust and then stacking the deck in ways that interfere with that trust (which happens if one imposes rules on how it is going to be played out)... I think one should see the outcome would be obvious....the answer will not answer the very real issues another may have, but instead increase the turmoil.If one is insisting that acceptance of plural marriage is essential to exaltation, then one should expect troubled hearts and minds given how the ideal marriage relationship is currently being taught as completely monogamous, being faithful in love to only one woman as long as she is present in your life and not taken in death....in heaven death never occurs and your spouse is with you eternally so there would be no need to find another relationship to fill that void.For those who are struggling to come up with something that feels inherently wrong in a relationship in order to understand a bit better what another might feel about plural marriage, does it feel right to imagine one will be sealed in marriage with your mother or father? And yet why couldnt that happen since we were all originally just spiritual siblings...in eternity what significance should temporary mortal arrangements hold, if any? We wouldn't expect the fact that a man was your boss and paid your salary to matter, what if biological parenthood didn't matter...after all many biological parents aren't sealed to their children as parents because they gave them up for adoption...so what eternal principle would stop them from being eternally sealed as husband and wife. Is everyone here as comfortable with that idea as they are with plural marriage? Edited November 11, 2014 by calmoriah 3
Calm Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 "You cannot fight against and reject a commandment from God and still expect exaltation. Whether you personally will be required to live plural marriage is not an established doctrine. But fighting or denigrating any of God's laws and commandments won't get us where we want to go...into his presence."Given the first two commandments include one about loving others, fighting or denigrating any of God's children won't get us where we want to go either.Trying to understand their way of thinking and not dismiss it as inconsequential and not essentially telling them they get to choose between compromising something they see as part of their core being or living out of the presence of their beloved Father forever seems to me to be what God is commanding us to do in the here and now, something I personally am a bit more concerned about than commandments in the eternities that we really have no clue about----save we know whatever God requires of us will lift us up, not diminish or degrade us---no matter what some want to claim. 2
Garden Girl Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 You missed her point - it was not that we will be required. It's that "If anyone had an issue with it, they won't be exalted anyway, and therefore won't have to deal with marriage at all." **This is an absolute statement that I don't think is accurate. You cannot fight against and reject a commandment from God and still expect exaltation. Whether you personally will be required to live plural marriage is not an established doctrine. But fighting or denigrating any of God's laws and commandments won't get us where we want to go...into his presence. **I'm not fighting against or rejecting a commandment required for exaltation. If it is not required, why would it affect exaltation. If it is required, I'm trusting that my eternal perspective will allow me to accept the principle, but until I truly know and understand God's will, not someone's interpretation, I hold to my view. I do not see myself standing before God and Christ telling them that polygamy is wrong. Nor do I think that polygamy is "wrong" per se... hence, the widower example. The Church does not take an official position or state an established doctrine... Also, read the marriage ceremony. If it's the last ordinance needed for exaltation, exactly what ordinance pertaining to the holy order of marriage did you just covenant to keep in the future? You're done aren't you? Maybe not... **Huh? GG
Scott Lloyd Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 I disagree with an absolute statement that we won't be exalted unless we live polygamy... I agree that there is no official Church teaching regarding whether we will be required to live polygamy to be exalted. We do know that today a widower can be sealed to a subsequent wife and chldren... and why wouldn't he be... i.e., a man's wife dies and leaves him with children, then he meets and marries a second wife and has children with her, why wouldn't he want that family also to be with him in the eternities, and in exaltation.I do agree that if there is polygamy in exaltation, those participating will be completely happy because there is nothing in Heavenly Father's kingdom that isn't perfect and for our happiness. But I do not believe it will be a requirement because of the Church's position, regardless of what BY has said.And I agree our eternal perspective will be different than what we can understand as mere humans... GGVery wise, Garden Girl. You too, Silhouette.
VideoGameJunkie Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 With the way things are going in my life mentally, I'm afraid if I'll even find a wife in this life. I hope I can meet someone in the spirit world. If polygamy is an exaltation trait then I hope I can meet multiple people in the spirit world. I just don't want to be alone for eternity.
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 With the way things are going in my life mentally, I'm afraid if I'll even find a wife in this life. I hope I can meet someone in the spirit world. If polygamy is an exaltation trait then I hope I can meet multiple people in the spirit world. I just don't want to be alone for eternity.We got an apostolic promise a few conferences back that those who live the gospel fully and seek the blessings of exaltation will not be denied them due to circumstances on earth.
cinepro Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Either you'll embrace it and be completely happy with it, or you won't be exalted to have to worry about it anyway. Well when you put it like that, I can't imagine why any woman would have a problem with the idea. 4
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 No problem with polygamy or polyandry in heaven but then if I shared my ideas of procreation and what marital relationships are like in heaven it makes polygamy seem sane and rational by comparison so I am a bad standard to judge by.I will say with confidence that everyone there is happy.
JLHPROF Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Also, read the marriage ceremony. If it's the last ordinance needed for exaltation, exactly what ordinance pertaining to the holy order of marriage did you just covenant to keep in the future? You're done aren't you? Maybe not... **Huh?GG Exactly what I said. Read the covenant made in the marriage sealing ceremony. You covenant in your marriage to observe further rites and ordinances pertaining to marriage. What other ordinances pertaining to marriage are there? And how do we observe them to fulfill this covenant?
cinepro Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 On the subject of the original article, it appears that Drudge picked it up and the article has been picked up all over the world by dozens of news sites. Google News After the relatively mild reception to the previous essays, I doubt Church leaders saw this coming. I don't think this is a good thing.
ERayR Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 It is my not so humble opinion that we make far to many claims and guesses about plural marriage with not nearly enough information. We know it was a practice of some members of the church but beyond that it is largely conjecture colored by our own biases. Conjectures are made about the practice of polygamy in heaven with virtually no knowledge of how it will be practice nor of its importance. In a word no actual information and much personal projection. 3
JLHPROF Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 It is my not so humble opinion that we make far to many claims and guesses about plural marriage with not nearly enough information. We know it was a practice of some members of the church but beyond that it is largely conjecture colored by our own biases. Conjectures are made about the practice of polygamy in heaven with virtually no knowledge of how it will be practice nor of its importance. In a word no actual information and much personal projection. I disagree. We are taught by pretty much every prophet of the dispensation that the family order on earth is a model of the family order in heaven. We are taught we are God's children. We have children. We are taught that marriage is eternal. We are taught that the very nature of our existence here on earth is for God's spirit children to become like God and return to him. That's basic doctrine. We may not know 100% how everything will work, but the family order is no mystery. I don't consider extending that line of thought into plural marriage to be without knowledge or conjecture. A covenant family is eternal, even if it's plural. And God's role is to continue the process by which these eternal family units are created.
Alan Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion. Yes, you are.
Alan Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Everyone is entitled to their wrong opinion. And even if you are right, are we to believe that he is going to be a polygamist in the eternaties but not here? You yourself admit he was sealed to more than one woman. Either way, polygamy is still polygamy Speculation.We don't know what the afterlife will be like.When it comes to sealings I believe we are "looking through a glass darkly" at best. 1
ERayR Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 I disagree. We are taught by pretty much every prophet of the dispensation that the family order on earth is a model of the family order in heaven. We are taught we are God's children. We have children. We are taught that marriage is eternal. We are taught that the very nature of our existence here on earth is for God's spirit children to become like God and return to him. That's basic doctrine. We may not know 100% how everything will work, but the family order is no mystery. I don't consider extending that line of thought into plural marriage to be without knowledge or conjecture. A covenant family is eternal, even if it's plural. And God's role is to continue the process by which these eternal family units are created. Of course you don't that is why you do it but your extrapolation is no more or less accurate than anyone else. Which family order gets the distinction of being the correct one? How does all that extrapolate to polygamy? 2
Jeanne Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 If this is meant to allude to things that happen in the temple it is completely inappropriate.My apologies to you and the board.
cdowis Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) After the relatively mild reception to the previous essays, I doubt Church leaders saw this coming. I don't think this is a good thing. I don't think they were so naive. These leaders have been in the world, not graduates from divinity school. They were perfectly aware that "40 wives" was going to be a very provocative news article. Their reaction was likely, "What took you so long" (Chronicles of Rodderick) Edited November 11, 2014 by cdowis
Guest Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-newsIf you are speaking of Joseph is was 34, and the lion share were sealings. Everyone loves to talk about young girls sealed to him, but at the same time he also had 50-60's year old women at the same time. In that day the life expectancy was 50 years of age, Many of the critics claim Joseph always has sexual relations with the young, but throw us a bone by saying probably not the old ones. This thinking feeds their own thinking.
Sleeper Cell Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Speculation.We don't know what the afterlife will be like.When it comes to sealings I believe we are "looking through a glass darkly" at best. As opposed to people in the 21st century speculating about the marital relations of individuals who lived in the 19th century? Helen Mar Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph when she was 14, clearly stated that it was a sealing for eternity and not a marriage in the normal sense. It was dynastical. There was not even a hint of intimacy.So why not the others? Eliza Snow issued an affidavit in Utah swearing she was a wife to Joseph and made other statements which suggested she had marital relations with him. However, she also issued a signed statement in Nauvoo (dated after her claimed marriage date) claiming there was no plural marriage in the church. She was lying in one of these statements. I mention this to illustrate that when the claims are examined properly, very few of them stack up. As many here know, it is my belief that Joseph was not a polygamist. He was only married to Emma. 1
Mystery Meat Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Speculation.We don't know what the afterlife will be like.When it comes to sealings I believe we are "looking through a glass darkly" at best. I just don't know how any reasonable person can come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. It makes zero sense. The Church has no problem acknowledging it. The only way he wasn't is if Brigham Young made it up after the fact to justify his own behavior in the minds of the people. If that were the case that would call into question the very validity of authority claims the Church has. Without the authority, this church is nothing but a group of silly people doing silly things. 1
JLHPROF Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 I just don't know how any reasonable person can come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. It makes zero sense. The Church has no problem acknowledging it. By reading too many RLDS (CoC) materials. No other scholar has ever promoted such a theory because it holds no water.
Analytics Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 By reading too many RLDS (CoC) materials. No other scholar has ever promoted such a theory because it holds no water. The wording "no other scholar has ever" exaggerates the strength and longevity of the case. Throughout his lifetime, Joseph Smith publically claimed he was a monogamist. There are no church or state records that indicate he ever married anybody other than Emma. From the first edition of the D&C in 1835 until 1852, the official position of the Church was that the polygamy was strictly forbidden. Throughout her life, Emma Smith claimed Joseph only had one wife. In fact, until August of 1852, over eight years after his death, the only evidence that Joseph Smith was a polygamist was the word of anti-Mormons. 1852 was the year when the Church told the general membership that the revelation now known as Section 132 even existed. 1
Analytics Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news The very best possible response to this article was posted on another board by a poster who goes by Sammy Jankins. He said: Is it too late for Monson to declare the Times a nuisance and try to dismantle their printing press?
USU78 Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 The wording "no other scholar has ever" exaggerates the strength and longevity of the case. Throughout his lifetime, Joseph Smith publically claimed he was a monogamist. There are no church or state records that indicate he ever married anybody other than Emma. From the first edition of the D&C in 1835 until 1852, the official position of the Church was that the polygamy was strictly forbidden. Throughout her life, Emma Smith claimed Joseph only had one wife. In fact, until August of 1852, over eight years after his death, the only evidence that Joseph Smith was a polygamist was the word of anti-Mormons. 1852 was the year when the Church told the general membership that the revelation now known as Section 132 even existed. 1852-2014. That means that this stuff has all been in the public domain for 162 years. So 'splain, please, Lucy, why this is suddenly news?
Recommended Posts