Eternal polygamy rears its ugly head…again

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I am convinced that any person who doesn't want to participate in polygamy in the eternities , will NOT be required to do so. 

CFR...or are you just speculating?

[SteveO]

2 hours 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'm gonna take a guess and say you've never been married?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

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

Why are you assuming I am emotional?  Nothing is different in my attitude than usual.  I am just explaining as it has been explained to me by both men and women.  I am suggesting ploygamy is stirred up very often when a woman has to choose who she says married to.  Perhaps in divorce it is not as strong an issue, but I know of families where kids fear they will be lost to one of their parents if the sealing is canceled (which isn't true, but I can see why it feels that wy to them).  With widows, I have heard sorrow because they feel it is a betrayal of someone they loved and who was faithful to them if they cancel it so they can be sealed to their new husbands.

And then they hear talks of how wonderful it will be from men who appear to be certain they will be sealed to both wives and be with them both as wives after death.  It can be very painful for them.

Btw, I believe they have discontinued being married in the temple for time only.  And I suspect the biggest benefitof a temple marriage is not the place it occurs, but what it means when two people are sealed together....The eternal nature of the relationship, knowing both are working towards the same goal of a united family, not only now, but for all eternity.

Men need clearances when divorced, not cancelations (and that was started sometime in the 90s, iirc).  And if widowers, they don't even need that.

[ksfisher]

41 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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

I think that that 85% is not quite so impressive when you consider the method used to conduct the survey.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, jcake said:

 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. 

President John Taylor - Excerpts from 19 January 1883 Letter to Malinda Merrill

In regard to the question which you have proposed pertaining to plurality of wives you say, "According to my way of understanding the revelation, I thought it was sealing, but some say it is plurality." Permit me to say that it is both, you will find that the revelation is on the eternity of the marriage covenant, including* plurality of wives, and the first paragraph reads, "Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines -" The question that was asked was evidently in relation to those people, and especially in relation to the plurality of wives....

The question is, what is the law? The 34th verse says: "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises." In the 37th verse it is said, "Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

You seem desirous to take part of the law and reject the other part, but it is plainly stated as above quoted, that they were "to do the works of Abraham, and that if ye enter not into my law, ye cannot receive the promise of my Father which was made unto Abraham." It is further said, "God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and the reason why she did it was because it was the law." It is evident, therefore, from the whole of the above that other wives are included in this law as well as the one.

You further inquire: "What is the difference in a man having dead wives sealed to him, than living women, so that he has one living wife; will they gain as great an exaltation if they have dead women sealed to them?" This law pertains more particularly to the living....

You seem to be desirous of having dead women sealed to your husband instead of living ones, whereas the law pertaining to these matters does not put things in that shape. We read that the Lord commanded Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and it is for wives as well as husbands to perform their part in relation to these matters.

Quote

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. 

WHICH LAW IS D&C 132 ABOUT?
D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—
2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. (which matter? - the one just mentioned in verse 1)
3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. (which law? -  the one just mentioned in verse 1 & 2)
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world. (which law? - again, see verse 1 & 2)

ORIGIN/ETERNAL NATURE OF THE LAW
 28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.

BLESSINGS OF THE LAW
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

AGAIN, WHICH LAW IS NEEDED FOR THE BLESSINGS?
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.
34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

God repeatedly describes plural marriage as a law, an eternal law, and a law of the priesthood, and not only a law but one required for certain blessings.

[BCSpace]

6 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.    

There is no need to address it because any attempt to do so will always boil down to what is obvious.  Eternal Plural marriage is an official doctrine of the LDS Church.  One certainly don't see any cancellation of plural sealings.....

And compared to what a lot of the world practices, plural marriage LDS-style certainly isn't ugly.

Edited July 21, 2016 by BCSpace
Edit

[SeekerB]

The lifestyle of Celestial Beings is what it is. We grew up with it in the pre-existance, yet remember nothing about it. It all comes down to trusting God and believing that a society of exalted men and women, good, clean, pure and loving, would not have a lifestyle that is detestable.

Stressing out over this can take your down a side road, and you may get off the path and lose the greater glory available to us if we remain faithful.

[BlueDreams]

7 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.    

interesting. My first concern was similar to Calm's.....how'd they get the participants and numbers. Snow-ball research can have a problem for filtering out issues. And the number of 85% with "extreme" pain while 15% being ok also seems to be too extreme in descriptors. I would personally not fit in either category. I don't have extreme pain about it...I rarely think about it and have had a couple of decades to accept that differing family structures that I wouldn't personally ever want can still be healthy or happy. But I'm not ok with polygamy as an eternal concept or how many culturally, those who do agree with it to some sense, seem to expand its prominence in heaven. On earth it was always the exception to the divine rule. Other exceptions that may have been God-dictated are not assumed to have an eternal position but a fairly temporal timeline. When I sit and think about the common rhetoric around and supporting the position of polygamy, it doesn't make a lot of sense, it's dogmatic, and it falls short of things that seem to me basic divine qualities of God. Most I've known aren't exactly a fan, but aren't in extreme anguish over it either. 

Some of the concepts mentioned in the article seem to privilege a modern stance on marriage. Such as focusing on romantic love. Or that our assumptions about what will happen in the eternities with a polygamy basis is accurate in and of itself. Such as the idea that women will choose their husband in the end from the sealings....assumptions do not make doctrine and there's nothing in the wording of these sealings to validate a difference. It's just the practice and practices are fairly malleable which can then alter our perception of what is doctrine. 

I don't feel comfortable calling it all one big mistake/error. I'm more comfortable with ambiguity and acceptance that the sealing relationships may be more complicated than we discuss. We glorify the nuclear family as what will be sealed, but the promises, IMO, focuses more as sealed generations into one Family. The simplistic view of eternal families doesn't just hurt those who don't like polygamy. It can also be extremely uncomfortable for those who already have a complex family to begin with. By assuming the only families that make it are those that fit a 2-parent male/female household doesn't necessarily comfort those that can't fit it (which is a growing chunk of the population). Again I'm not a big fan of Polygamy. I think that the way people talk about it, assuming those who won't live it in the eternities are somehow missing out, is asinine to me. It's dialogue is blocky and with several simple logical holes...one of the largest being that if the dynamics are reversed the same arguments fall apart. But her solution and some of the concerns around it also seem a little too simple as well.

 

With luv,

BD  

 

[Garden Girl]

5 hours ago, strappinglad said:

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 .

This is what I think also... and I'm not convinced there will be "consequences" for those who choose not to live polygamy... 

GG

[ksfisher]

36 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

We glorify the nuclear family as what will be sealed, but the promises, IMO, focuses more as sealed generations into one Family. 

+1

[VideoGameJunkie]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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

I don't believe so.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

This is what I think also... and I'm not convinced there will be "consequences" for those who choose not to live polygamy... 

GG

I think if it exists, it will be more like choosing amongst good choices what works best for oneself and not like rejecting a commandment or blessing (as comparing it to rejecting Christ, which is a sin, seems to imply).

[Calm]

Glenn, I know a woman can be proxy sealed to all of her husbands after they are all dead, but you appear to state this can happen while the woman is living and the husbands are dead.  Can you please provide a reference for this if this is what you mean.

[Stargazer]

10 hours 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. 

That's very weird.

Let's see if this makes sense.

She left the church because the church teaches that plural marriage will exist in eternity?  

• What if the principle of plural marriage in eternity is a true principle, ordained by God?  In that case, I guess she's rebelling against God.  And leaving the Church will ensure that she doesn't end up in a plural marriage.  And incidentally it ensures she ends up in the Terrestrial Kingdom.  Does she really want that?  If she does, then fine.
• If God didn't give the revelation, this means that the Church isn't true, so there's no point in leaving the Church because there will be no plural marriage in eternity, and therefore nothing to fear on this point.

It doesn't make any sense, at least to me.  If God has ordained the principle as an eternal principle, does it not make sense to people (who should be able to at least imagine the possibility that they can't see eternity yet), that God has not created plural marriage to make women's lives miserable in eternity?  Why is it that LDS people, who of all people should understand that "heaven" is infinitely better and far more powerful than our earth life, cannot understand that Eternal Life is entirely beyond their present understanding? The Endowment contains all kinds of superlative language that should say to people that Eternal Life is NOTHING like the life we live here.  And that we cannot possibly understand what it will be like, that trying to compare it with this life is unendingly foolish, and to make judgement calls on what they will really see in that day is completely nuts?  

If one says: "God has said there will be plural marriage in eternity -- well, I reject that."  Does this not clearly mean that one rejects God?  That strikes me as entirely foolish.

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Glenn, I know a woman can be proxy sealed to all of her husbands after they are all dead, but you appear to state this can happen while the woman is living and the husbands are dead.  Can you please provide a reference for this if this is what you mean.

If that's what Glenn is saying, he is wrong.  The policy is that all the parties must be dead for at least a year before it can happen.

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

In the article CLP was asked what she thought the solution should be.  Her response, one that I agree with, was this:

Quote

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.

 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If that's what Glenn is saying, he is wrong.  The policy is that all the parties must be dead for at least a year before it can happen.

Thank you, i was quite certain that was so and the TW manual seemed to confirm it, but I thought there might be sime nuance I was missing.

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

.

• If God didn't give the revelation, this means that the Church isn't true, so there's no point in leaving the Church because there will be no plural marriage in eternity, and therefore nothing to fear on this point.

If the Church isn't true,then why stay?

[Calm]

Glenn, you present the idea that it means the woman can choose the husband she wants as if it solves all the issues.  Do you see it that way and if so, why?

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

God repeatedly describes plural marriage as a law, an eternal law, and a law of the priesthood, and not only a law but one required for certain blessings.

All of the material above is from D&C 132.   Without this section there is no real justification of polygamy.  D&C 132 was written by JS, who at the time this section was made public had been practicing polygamy for some time in secret.  This section could be seen as justification of his actions.  Also, D&C 132 lays out in some detail the way polygamy should be practiced, none of which JS followed.  Given the questionable circumstances of its introduction and way JS disregarded section 132 in his practice, it seems the church could be justified in abandoning this hurtful and destructive teaching.  There is precedence for such action with the BY/priesthood restriction essay.  

Given the problems it as caused, maybe polygamy should be added to Bushman's list of the LDS narratives that should be changed.  What would the fallout of such action be?  IMO it would be a net positive.  

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by sunstoned

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

All of the material above is from D&C 132.   Without this section there is no real justification of polygamy.  D&C 132 was written by JS, who at the time this section was made public had been practicing polygamy for some time in secret.  This section could be seen as justification of his actions.  Also, D&C 132 lays out in some detail the way polygamy should be practiced, none of which JS followed.  Given the questionable circumstances of its introduction and way JS disregarded section 132 in his practice, it seems the church could be justified in abandoning this hurtful and destructive teaching.  There is precedence for such action with the BY/priesthood restriction essay.  

Given the problems it as caused, maybe polygamy should be added to Bushman's list of the LDS narratives that should be changed.  What would the fallout of such action be?  IMO it would be a net positive.  

 

The polygamy controversy will actually end up being one of those critical issues that will separate the true believers -- those who have real testimonies by the power of the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of the living God -- from those quasi-believers who will abandon the good ship Zion when the going gets really tough. The prophecy of Heber C Kimball is in the process of being fulfilled that there will be a great division in the Church between those who have true testimonies, and those who don't, before the Secomd Coming of the Savior.

Before that day comes, however, the Saints will be put to a test that will try the integrity of the best of them. The pressure will become so great that the more righteous among them will cry unto the Lord day and night until deliverance comes.

Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills, where we can close the doors of the canyons against mobs and persecutors, the wicked and the vile, who have always beset us with violence and robbery, but I want to say to you, my brethren, that the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God.

Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great shifting time, and many will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming. (Heber C Kimball).

Edited July 21, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

All of the material above is from D&C 132.   Without this section there is no real justification of polygamy.  D&C 132 was written by JS, who at the time this section was made public had been practicing polygamy for some time in secret.  This section could be seen as justification of his actions.  Also, D&C 132 lays out in some detail the way polygamy should be practiced, none of which JS followed.  Given the questionable circumstances of its introduction and way JS disregarded section 132 in his practice, it seems the church could be justified in abandoning this hurtful and destructive teaching.  There is precedence for such action with the BY/priesthood restriction essay.  

Given the problems it as caused, maybe polygamy should be added to Bushman's list of the LDS narratives that should be changed.  What would the fallout of such action be?  IMO it would be a net positive.  

If the only response to the issue of polygamy and people's doubts concerning it is to reject a canonized revelation from God (which is the only scriptural source for eternal marriage sealings too) then there are bigger issues than polygamy to be dealt with.

Who knows what revelation will be the next to be attacked.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours 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.

Um...no.

There is obvious disparity in policy between genders but even if women were given the same ability to be sealed to multiple spouses, I don't see how the ghost of polygamy ever fades. It solves one of the multitudinous problems, but the overarching damage the system of multiple partnership creates would persist. Spouses could never truly be intimate or have complete trust in the fidelity of their partner.

Polygamy, polyandry, polyamory- whatever version you want to ascribe to, destroys what should be the closest, most special relationship a person has

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[Rain]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Why are you assuming I am emotional?  Nothing is different in my attitude than usual.  I am just explaining as it has been explained to me by both men and women.  I am suggesting ploygamy is stirred up very often when a woman has to choose who she says married to.  Perhaps in divorce it is not as strong an issue, but I know of families where kids fear they will be lost to one of their parents if the sealing is canceled (which isn't true, but I can see why it feels that wy to them).  With widows, I have heard sorrow because they feel it is a betrayal of someone they loved and who was faithful to them if they cancel it so they can be sealed to their new husbands.

And then they hear talks of how wonderful it will be from men who appear to be certain they will be sealed to both wives and be with them both as wives after death.  It can be very painful for them.

Btw, I believe they have discontinued being married in the temple for time only.  And I suspect the biggest benefitof a temple marriage is not the place it occurs, but what it means when two people are sealed together....The eternal nature of the relationship, knowing both are working towards the same goal of a united family, not only now, but for all eternity.

Men need clearances when divorced, not cancelations (and that was started sometime in the 90s, iirc).  And if widowers, they don't even need that.

It's not just the children worrying about it all either. 

In my family we have a young couple who were sealed.  They had been married for only about a year when he was killed in an accident.  The young widow grieved for him,  but after a time she was ready to be married again.  It was very difficult for her because she could remain sealed to her first husband who in this life she would barely knew in comparison to the soon to be second husband or she could cancel her sealing to the first husband, feeling like she was betraying him. 

She chose to have the sealing cancelled. The first husband's family were very close and there were other circumstances in their family that affected their feelings and now they felt profound hurt over their son and sibling not being sealed.  

I can look at this all and have faith that things will work out, but I do not have their prior experiences and I definitely wasn't in their place so I can understand why they have a much harder time with it than I do. 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Rain

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

That's very weird.

Let's see if this makes sense.

She left the church because the church teaches that plural marriage will exist in eternity?  

• What if the principle of plural marriage in eternity is a true principle, ordained by God?  In that case, I guess she's rebelling against God.  And leaving the Church will ensure that she doesn't end up in a plural marriage.  And incidentally it ensures she ends up in the Terrestrial Kingdom.  Does she really want that?  If she does, then fine.
• If God didn't give the revelation, this means that the Church isn't true, so there's no point in leaving the Church because there will be no plural marriage in eternity, and therefore nothing to fear on this point.

It doesn't make any sense, at least to me.  If God has ordained the principle as an eternal principle, does it not make sense to people (who should be able to at least imagine the possibility that they can't see eternity yet), that God has not created plural marriage to make women's lives miserable in eternity?  Why is it that LDS people, who of all people should understand that "heaven" is infinitely better and far more powerful than our earth life, cannot understand that Eternal Life is entirely beyond their present understanding? The Endowment contains all kinds of superlative language that should say to people that Eternal Life is NOTHING like the life we live here.  And that we cannot possibly understand what it will be like, that trying to compare it with this life is unendingly foolish, and to make judgement calls on what they will really see in that day is completely nuts?  

If one says: "God has said there will be plural marriage in eternity -- well, I reject that."  Does this not clearly mean that one rejects God?  That strikes me as entirely foolish.

 

Maybe this woman hasn't been taught that. Like myself, I was never taught that I might live polygamy in the hereafter. The only thing I knew was that it was lived for a short time, to take care of the women who crossed the plains and lost husbands. 

This IMO, is what a lot of people know, it's all they knew. I guess it depends on our parents, seminary teachers, etc.

In fact I'm ashamed to admit, I didn't know we were to become Gods and Goddesses either. And I am an endowed member!