Eternal polygamy rears its ugly head…again

[Sky]

http://religionnews.com/2016/07/20/mormon-women-fear-eternal-polygamy-study-shows/

Apparently this is a much more widespread problem than I even realized.  A lot of Mormon women, in particular, have a problem with it.  

In a survey by Carol Lynn Pearson, it was found that only 15% said that polygamy was just fine, and it would all work out in heaven.  The other 85% gave their personal stories of extreme pain and difficulty around those issues.  And the institutional LDS Church hasn't done a lot to address it.    

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Sky said:

http://religionnews.com/2016/07/20/mormon-women-fear-eternal-polygamy-study-shows/

Apparently this is a much more widespread problem than I even realized.  A lot of Mormon women, in particular, have a problem with it.  

In a survey by Carol Lynn Pearson, it was found that only 15% said that polygamy was just fine, and it would all work out in heaven.  The other 85% gave their personal stories of extreme pain and difficulty around those issues.  And the institutional LDS Church hasn't done a lot to address it.    

This keeps popping up in other threads.  Nice to have one dedicated to it.

I don't know what people would like the Church to do about it.  President Monson could get up and say there will be no eternal polygamy and that would do nothing to negate all the plural sealings performed in the past 150+ years nor the scripture on which they are based.
Also, if said without revelation on the subject it would be little more than his opinion.

So what is the Church supposed to do?  Lie to make people feel better?
 

[juliann]

Nobody expects 19th century marriages to be "negated." Where does that even come from? It has nothing to do with the living.  D&C 132 was "negated" with a First Presidency statement saying celestial marriage was not a synonym for polygamy.  These points are diversions. Your position is very weak if you have to present it as a false dilemma: the church keeps everything as is or they LIE!.

The only thing the Church needs to do is equalize the sealing policy. Perhaps if male polygamy advocates also had to have a cancellation to marry another woman it would begin to matter to them. However, the better solution is to let women also have serial sealings. 

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, Sky said:

http://religionnews.com/2016/07/20/mormon-women-fear-eternal-polygamy-study-shows/

Apparently this is a much more widespread problem than I even realized.  A lot of Mormon women, in particular, have a problem with it.  

In a survey by Carol Lynn Pearson, it was found that only 15% said that polygamy was just fine, and it would all work out in heaven.  The other 85% gave their personal stories of extreme pain and difficulty around those issues.  And the institutional LDS Church hasn't done a lot to address it.    

My wife was very concerned about this. I promised her I wouldn't take on any additional wives in the afterlife, which seemed to help. I think a lot of women worry about this. One of my sisters left the church over it. 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, juliann said:

Nobody expects 19th century marriages to be "negated." Where does that even come from? It has nothing to do with the living. 

Exactly my point.  It has nothing to do with the living.  We are talking about people who are not being asked to live polygamy worrying about just the possibility that it might happen in future eternities.
What exactly do we want the Church to do help the 85% who are troubled by this?  We might as well spend our time worrying about what will happen a couple of eternities down the road.

Quote

The only thing the Church needs to do is equalize the sealing policy. Perhaps if male polygamy advocates also had to have a cancellation to marry another woman it would begin to matter to them. However, the better solution is to let women also have serial sealings. 

Do we really think that would make the 85% of women who are troubled by the possibility of future eternal polygamy any happier or strengthen their faith?  Is it any better to say "hey, we know you don't want to even think of possibly ever sharing your husband so to make you feel better we will say he might have to share you too".  Somehow I doubt that will alleviate any hurt or concerns over the mere possibility of eternal polygamy that the 85% might be feeling.

Quote

 D&C 132 was "negated" with a First Presidency statement saying celestial marriage was not a synonym for polygamy.  These points are diversions. Your position is very weak if you have to present it as a false dilemma: the church keeps everything as is or they LIE!.

I don't believe I presented that dichotomy at all.  There just needs to be a revelatory backing to further light and knowledge or else it is just opinion.  Nobody said anything about lying.

Edited July 20, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

My wife was very concerned about this. I promised her I wouldn't take on any additional wives in the afterlife, which seemed to help. I think a lot of women worry about this. One of my sisters left the church over it. 

I'd quote you what some of the prophets have said about this, but I don't think it would serve much purpose.  You know the teachings as well as I do.
But I agree that many worry over this.  I'm just not sure what can legitimately be done to provide any comfort or solace about things eternities hence.

Edited July 20, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, Gray said:

My wife was very concerned about this. I promised her I wouldn't take on any additional wives in the afterlife, which seemed to help. I think a lot of women worry about this. One of my sisters left the church over it. 

It is near the top for why people leave the church, probably for many reasons. I never really thought about it until I learned of JS's style of polygamy. It wasn't an issue, I don't know why that is. I must not have been taught much about it, thus my faith crisis over learning about Joseph. 

[smac97]

On 7/20/2016 at 3:40 PM, Sky said:

http://religionnews.com/2016/07/20/mormon-women-fear-eternal-polygamy-study-shows/

Apparently this is a much more widespread problem than I even realized.  A lot of Mormon women, in particular, have a problem with it.  

In a survey by Carol Lynn Pearson, it was found that only 15% said that polygamy was just fine, and it would all work out in heaven.  The other 85% gave their personal stories of extreme pain and difficulty around those issues.  And the institutional LDS Church hasn't done a lot to address it.    

From the article ("RNS" is Jana Reiss ("Religion News Service")):

Quote

RNS: If wishes were horses and you could change the church’s policy on eternal polygamy and temple sealings, what would a more just policy look like?

Pearson: My next to last chapter is very clear about the path I’m laying out. Let’s just say that I believe it’s essential for men and women to be placed on equal ground. Polygamy is indefensible. My position is that it was an error and needs to be corrected.

I have a lot of compassion and empathy for people who are not comfortable with the concept of polygamy.  I'm not particularly comfortable with it.  I do not understand it.  So much of the Restored Gospel comports with my general, gut-level sense of "right" and "wrong," but polygamy . . . doesn't.

However, neither does animal sacrifice.

Neither does Nephi slaying Laban.

Neither does the slaying of Nehor.

Neither do the deaths described in 2 Kings 2 ("Go up, thou bald head...").

And so on.

There are all sorts of things in play here.  Context matters.  A lot.  Historical context.  Social/cultural context.  Scriptural context.  Gospel context.  So does accuracy in conveyed information.  So do my personal life experiences, as well as the importance of properly characterizing those experiences as finite, blinkered, and not altogether accurate (rather than definitive, perfected and utterly, pristinely correct).

In other words, my sense of unease is not the most reliable moral barometer in the world.  So objectivity helps.  So does research.  Lots of research.  And patience.  And humility (at the prospect that my "ick factor" may be more about me than about the thing I find to be "icky").  And a willingness to re-assess previous assumptions.  But most of all . . . faith.  Lots and lots of faith.

I'll be curious to see how reasoned an argument Sis. Pearson presents in her book.  She claims to have "recently helped conduct a large snowball survey of more than 8,000 Latter-day Saints about how they feel about polygamy."  That is an very large sampling.  Impressive.  Almost . . . hard to believe.  What sort of survey was it?  What were the questions presented?  How were the participants selected?  What methodology was used?  I suspect the quality of the poll is . . . suspect.

Nevertheless, I would not be surprised if many Latter-day Saints have varying degrees of discomfort about the concept.  But if Sis. Pearson is going to characterize it as something other than a divinely-revealed (though not perfectly-enacted/practiced) concept, then I think she's in for disappointment.

D&C 132 is canonized scripture.  Jacob 2:30 is likewise canonized.  It is quantitatively and qualitatively different from that other bugaboo that continues to haunt the Church: the Priesthood Ban.  The Ban lacks any scriptural/revelatory provenance (at least that we know of).  But polygamy . . . well, we're stuck with the concept.  We own it (as did the Biblical patriarchs before us, but I digress...).  

Further, many of the 19th-century Church's strongest supporters of polygamy were . . . women.  Women who actually observed the practice themselves and/or had friends and family around them who did.  Women who testified of strong spiritual experiences they had in overcoming their understandable initial aversion to polygamy.  For me, their testimonies are important, more important that the angst and discomfort expressed by folks in 2016 who have had no occasion to have been impressed by the Spirit to enter into the practice, whose ideas about marriage are almost entirely "romantic" (an important contextual element that differentiates 2016 Saints from their 19th-century counterparts), and whose perspective on polygamy is blinkered, ignorant, and based principally on hypothetical "what ifs" about the eternities that are almost certainly not going to be correct in many material respects.

For example, consider this statement from Phoebe Woodruff:

Quote

When the principles of polygamy was first taught I thought it the most wicked thing I ever heard of; consequently I supp opposed it to the best of my ability, until I became sick and wretched. As soon, however, as I became convinced that it originated as a revelation from God through Joseph, and knowing him to be a prophet, I wrestled with my Heavenly Father in fervent prayers--, to be guided aright at that all important moment of my life. The answer came. Peace was given to my mind. I knew it was the will of God and from that time to the present I have sought to faithfully honor the patriarchal law. Of Joseph, my testimony is that he was one of the greatest prophets the Lord ever called; that he lived for the redemption of mankind, and died a martyr for the truth.

Will Sis. Pearson address accounts like this?

Or this account from Sarah Leavitt (same link as above):

Quote

My mind was carried away from the earth and I had a view of the order of the celestial kingdom. I saw that it {plural marriage} was the order there and oh, how beautiful. I was filled with love and joy that was unspeakable. I waked my husband and told him of the views I had and that the ordinance was from the Lord, but it would damn thousands. It was too sacred for fools to handle, for they would use it to gratify their lustful desires.

This is interesting to me.  I can accommodate an argument from Sis. Pearson that the doctrine of polygamy was, in some (many?) instances an ill-understood and ill-implemented concept among the Saints.  But to say that it is not revelatory at all?  That Joseph Smith was just looking for a way to slake his lusts for other women, such that he fabricated a "revelation" and presented it to the Church?  And God, the same God who publicly rebuked Joseph several times regarding his failings and errors, was just fine with Joseph abusing his prophetic mantle in one of the most egregious ways imaginable?  That's her theory (it rather has to be, I think)?  (EDIT TO ADD: If Sis. Pearson's proposal is limited to tweaking sealing policies, I'd really like to know that.  How such a policy change would assuage the overarching "ick factor" associated with polygamy is not clear to me.  "I dislike polygamy because only men get to have multiple wifes, but I'd be fine if women could have multiple husbands."  Is that it?) 

Well, it's a bit much.  If polygamy is "indefensible" as Sis. Pearson claims, does she address the experiences of the 19th-century Saints who were actually called upon to live it, and who practiced it during a time when moral sensibilities about sex were far more stringent than they are now, hence making polygamy at that time all the more difficult to accept, which many of the Saints nevertheless did?  I doubt it.  

So I'll be curious as to the "path" Sis. Pearson is laying out, and whether it will involve rejection of scripture (likely), questionable appeals to vox populi and their "ick factor" dislike of polygamy (very likely) (and keep in mind I share that ick factor), studied avoidance of the thoughts and opinions of the Saints who actually lived in polygamous families, or else limiting such thoughts/opinions to those who disliked the practice (likely), ark-steadying and presumptuous declarations to the Brethren about abandoning/rejecting revealed doctrines (likely), and a revelatory basis for declaring polygamy to be something other than what the Church teaches it to be (that it is "indefensible" and an "error" to be "corrected," and that God has selected Carol Lynn Pearson rather than His prophets and apostles to do that correcting).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 27, 2016 by smac97

[jcake]

Maybe if we stuck to the scriptures and got rid of all the conflicting things that have been added, our views might be changed.  Polygamy was practiced.  That it is anything other than a lesser law seems unlikely. The new testament notes that a bishop should be "the husband of one wife",  in the book of Mormon the practice is condemned in Jacob.  (Yes, some people read the chapter description  that adds that it was the way that it was practiced that Jacob was condemning, but the scriptures  do not say that at all, check it out.) And the D & C talks about Celestial marriage, followed by talking about Polygamy noting only that  polygamy won't be counted as adultry, which is a far cry from touting it as a higher way.  Are there any references in scripture that would suggest that polygamy is a higher law that we will be required to accept in the Celestial Kingdom?  If you think so, please explain why.  If we look at the fruits of polygamy as a gage of it's goodness we have to consider how it has affected  missionary work, how it has affected the peace and happiness of women.  We do see polygamy still, and the effects it has on women's status, in fundamentalist groups, and in Islamic societies. Is this really what God wants?  
 

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I definitely think it will be a part of the eternities, but won't some men who don't get to live it be jealous of those that do get to live it in the eternities. I would be jealous if someone else in the Celestial Kingdom has a more fullness of joy than me.

[Duncan]

I'd like to know the answer myself and I am not a lady!  wouldn't mind knowing of Elders Oaks and Nelson are polygamists as they are sealed to two women. If polygamy wasn't required of everybody down here then maybe it won't be required of everyone up there? as I understand it not that many people practice it in the first place and so maybe it doesn't matter down here then it won't up there either

[carbon dioxide]

11 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I definitely think it will be a part of the eternities, but won't some men who don't get to live it be jealous of those that do get to live it in the eternities. I would be jealous if someone else in the Celestial Kingdom has a more fullness of joy than me.

I don't think that would be the case in the Celestial Kingdom when we have a full understanding of all things.  Right now we know very little and what we know is influenced by the culture we live in. Modern day western culture does not exist in the Celestial Kingdom and I don't think there is jealously there.  Clearly we might think that those single angels might be jealous of those exalted married ones in the Celestial Kingdom but apparently they are not.  There is no indication that there is conflict, contention, or anything like that in the Celestial Kingdom.  Perhaps this is one of the reasons for this mortal life.  To weed out these character flaws so that there is no jealousy in the the Celestial Kingdom.

[strappinglad]

I am convinced that any person who doesn't want to participate in polygamy in the eternities , will NOT be required to do so. That there will be consequences for that decision is probable. There are consequences for rejecting Christ, or baptism , or priesthood, or any number of other actions.

   Hopefully, any such decisions will be done with a full knowledge of the resulting after effects.

As a flawed analogy, I was an educator for over 30 years. I never became an administrator. I didn't want the responsibility or the aggravation .Did I miss out on some perks?  Sure. Did I regret my position? Nope .

Edited July 20, 2016 by strappinglad

[JAHS]

From the article:

"Also, her children from her first marriage and her children with the second husband would all belong to her first husband in the afterlife. "

Her sealed children don't really "belong" to anyone except God.  People seem to have this cozy little idea that they will be living as husband and wife in a little heavenly cottage together with their children in the celestial kingdom. Anyone who makes it to the celestial kingdom will have their own spouse that they are sealed to and spend the eternities with. She may not even see her children much in the celestial kingdom once or if they all get there. Everyone there will however all be as one big eternal family with God as the head.

Having said that I do understand the possibility that a woman having to "share" her husband with someone else might worry some. But in my opinion, those who are worthy to be exalted will be the kind of people who would not experience any sort of jealousy or selfishness when it comes to their relationships there. All will love each other unconditionally.

 

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

http://religionnews.com/2016/07/20/mormon-women-fear-eternal-polygamy-study-shows/

Apparently this is a much more widespread problem than I even realized.  A lot of Mormon women, in particular, have a problem with it.  

In a survey by Carol Lynn Pearson, it was found that only 15% said that polygamy was just fine, and it would all work out in heaven.  The other 85% gave their personal stories of extreme pain and difficulty around those issues.  And the institutional LDS Church hasn't done a lot to address it.    

I don't see what there is to address.  The scriptures indicate that God has allowed or commanded polygamy at certain points in time.  Nothing can be done to change that fact unless one wants to put out a sterilized version of the scriptures to appease people and not make them sad.  Who really wants that?  What use would the scriptures be if all they do is present things that we like?  The Church does not practice polygamy now at least in terms of mortality so there nothing to address about current practice.  The members of the Church have problems with a lot of things that are true or may be hard to live.  We are still more worried about keeping up with the neighbors than having all things in common.  We are still way behind those who lived with Enoch.  They could handle polygamy and the united order and all that higher stuff so they were translated. We are still way too selfish.  Which I believe is the core problem of why people have difficultly with polygamy.  It all comes down to a selfishness at some level.  "I am being denied something that some other person has."  "Something is being taken away from me."  Ect.

Edited July 20, 2016 by carbon dioxide

[rpn]

I haven't read Sis. Pearson's book.   And I really get how people are repulsed by the idea that women cannot be sealed to two consecutive husbands (until they are dead), but men can be --- I do think that should be changed, since the church affirms that polygamy is not approved now.  

But I question the numbers she cites for women who object and experience personal pain.   I have no doubt that the percentage who talked to Sis. Pearson could be that high, but my own experience* is that there are about 20 percent of women who welcome polygamy to be in force today (mostly because it would reduce their obligations to husbands and households),  30-40 percent who have no objection, so long as it does not involve their spouse, and their family, 30 percent who would do it to honor the commandment, but wouldn't like it one bit, and 10-20% who would not do it even if an angel threatened them with a sword.

     I do think the fear stuff comes from a less than accurate view of the Plan.  Heavenly Father is not going to force His children into polygamy eternally, any more than He endorses force in any mortal endeavor.    It simply isn't and will never be the way He works.   So the worst case is that actions that seem abhorrent in mortal life, or now, will not be abhorrent to us at the point that we become like Them, because our hearts have changed? 

*I've spoken privately with many women in the course of my membership about a wide variety of things: this one comes up  fairly frequently.

Edited July 20, 2016 by rpn

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Sky said:

 

In a survey by Carol Lynn Pearson, it was found that only 15% said that polygamy was just fine, and it would all work out in heaven.  The other 85% gave their personal stories of extreme pain and difficulty around those issues.  And the institutional LDS Church hasn't done a lot to address it.    

I would like to see howthey set up the snowball sampling to see if it was sufficient to overcome the typical issues of such surveys.  I would also like to see all the questions asked to see how neutral they managed to be.

[Glenn101]

25 minutes ago, jcake said:

 We do see polygamy still, and the effects it has on women's status, in fundamentalist groups, and in Islamic societies. Is this really what God wants?  
 

 

When polygamy is practiced, (when required by the Lord) He wants it to be practiced in righteousness. God does want it practiced at all right now.

The polygamy question only seems to be a problem now because people keep agitating about it, keep stirring the pot, so to speak. The prophets have not said anything about it for years, except when questioned. Anyone who does have a problem with it right now should take that problem to the Lord. All indications are that polygamy will not be brought back in this dispensation. The millennium is another story. But we are not there yet. But Christ Himself will be there to answer our questions and help us sort things out. So, maybe we just need to trust in God and Jesus. Else, we are wasting our time as LDS.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

34 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I definitely think it will be a part of the eternities, but won't some men who don't get to live it be jealous of those that do get to live it in the eternities. I would be jealous if someone else in the Celestial Kingdom has a more fullness of joy than me.

You are thinking like a mere mortal. Jealousy, and other such human foibles will have to be done away with if we want to obtain perfection. Whatever "fulness of joy" you obtain will be that which you earn. But I don't think any of us will have the time or inclination to be jealous of another in the next life. Else, we will wind up being jealous of Jesus Himself because He is the Only Begotten of the Father.

Glenn

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

The polygamy question only seems to be a problem now because people keep agitating about it, keep stirring the pot, so to speak. The prophets have not said anything about it for years, except when questioned. 

Well, if a woman is divorced and is refused a cancelation for some reason or is a widow and then she remarries, it is a rather prominent problem for most believing LDS women because she cannot be sealed to her second husband.  We are taught that a temple marriage adds meaning and power to a relationship, helps it endure and then withhold it from a believing and committed couple because the woman has already tried it once with another man.

But we don't if the person who remarries is a man.  He gets all the blessings and assistance the woman's relationship is deprived.

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

If polygamy was allowed now every guy would be running around saying "Gotta catch em all!" Seriously dating would be a free for all.

[juliann]

Nothing illustrates the problem more than men feeling entitled to mansplain 80% of women about why their needs and expectations don't matter one whit. That alone is why the church needs to act. 

[Glenn101]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Well, if a woman is divorced and is refused a cancelation for some reason or is a widow and then she remarries, it is a rather prominent problem for most believing LDS women because she cannot be sealed to her second husband.  We are taught that a temple marriage adds meaning and power to a relationship, helps it endure and then withhold it from a believing and committed couple because the woman has already tried it once with another man.

But we don't if the person who remarries is a man.  He gets all the blessings and assistance the woman's relationship is deprived.

 

You are not as Calm as you usually are.  My point is that the problem with now with polygamy is that it just keeps getting stirred up and people are not trusting in the Lord.

If a woman's sealing is not cancelled, the man's sealing is also in place. My brother was in such a situation years ago. He was not free to remarry until the sealing was cancelled, else he would have been living in a polygamous relationship in the eyes of God. A woman and a man can be sealed for time in the temple even if the woman was previously sealed to a now deceased husband. If she outlives all of her husbands, she can be sealed to every one of them that she was legally married to. That, to me, says that a woman will be able to choose her husband in the next life, but I do not know really. I don't know what my own status will be. I have two wives, one deceased. I don't know what will happen there. I am just trusting in the Lord.

Glenn

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

If polygamy was allowed now every guy would be running around saying "Gotta catch em all!" Seriously dating would be a free for all.

I think this is a gross exageration to say the least.

[Johnnie Cake]

Polygamy will continue to haunt the members of the LDS church for as long as it has members.  There is no escape, no exit door or easy out.  Polygamy is so deeply ingrained in LDS doctrine that it is no surprise that 85% of the women surveyed are concerned by its eternal consequences to their own lives in this life. What a tragic burden LDS women must bare due to the long dark shadow cast by polygamy