New Book on Polygamy

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think there are special dispensations made to "cover our bases".  In other words I think the allowance is to address some uncertainty, not to create an eternal polyandrous union.
Every sealing ordinance has to be completed in mortality (hence the 1000 years of temple work called the Millennium).  By making exception to allow such sealings they are just ensuring the correct one is complete.
I don't see ANY indication that our leaders are approving the creation of polyandrous eternal families.

I think Cal sees the idea that the church is approving sealings they know will have no efficacy (for the woman) in eternity as problematic.  It can call into question the idea that the temple sealings actually do seal in heaven as they do on earth.  "Pretend" sealings that exist just to make someone feel better sound...icky.

For myself, I think our leaders (rarely) allow them because it's a gray area with no revelation explicitly saying it's forbidden or wrong.  I agree with you in that I think they believe the doctrine supports the idea that polyandry isn't something that will exist in heaven (and that is why they are not generally allowed), but that they have no revealed proof of that belief is correct, so when it becomes a desperate issue for a woman, they allow it.

If they were absolutely sure that the sealing would be useless in eternity, I don't think they would do it, regardless of how much a woman wanted them to.

Edited August 3, 2021 by bluebell

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think Cal sees the idea that the church is approving sealings they know will have no efficacy (for the woman) in eternity as problematic.  It can call into question the idea that the temple sealings actually do seal in heaven as they do on earth.  "Pretend" sealings that exist just to make someone feel better sound...icky.

For myself, I think our leaders (rarely) allow them because it's a gray area with no revelation explicitly saying it's forbidden or wrong.  I agree with you in that I think they believe the doctrine supports the idea that polyandry isn't something that will exist in heaven (and that is why they are not generally allowed), but that they have no revealed proof of that belief is correct, so when it becomes a desperate issue for a woman, they allow it.

If they were absolutely sure that the sealing would be useless in eternity, I don't think they would do it, regardless of how much a woman wanted them to.

I would agree that approving sealings with no efficacy would be problematic.  But all sealings are dependent on ratification by heaven.
You don't think an ordinance is ever performed "just in case"?
I really don't see that the intent would be to give a woman both husbands when approving these sealings.  I think they are doing it to ensure she is sealed to the correct husband when there is some doubt.

[mgy401]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I thought the Church's policy was that a woman can only be sealed to one man.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe the policy has been that a living woman can only be sealed to one man at a time.  (I thought I may have heard about that changing recently, though I could be wrong.) 

But I think the policy has always been that a woman may posthumously be sealed to all of her legal husbands.  

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I would agree that approving sealings with no efficacy would be problematic.  But all sealings are dependent on ratification by heaven.
You don't think an ordinance is ever performed "just in case"?
I really don't see that the intent would be to give a woman both husbands when approving these sealings.  I think they are doing it to ensure she is sealed to the correct husband when there is some doubt.

I do think sealings are sometimes done just in case, and the just in case in this situation would be "just in case God is going to allow polyandry".   

Our doctrine and practices already allow "just in case" sealings to make sure that a woman is sealed to the correct husband.  Why would they need to make an exception to a rule when the rule already produces the desired result?  

If the FP was only concerned that a woman be sealed to the correct man, all they would need to do is just have the woman wait until death to be and seal her to both.  Like they already do in the majority of cases.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I do think sealings are sometimes done just in case, and the just in case in this situation would be "just in case God is going to allow polyandry".   

Our doctrine and practices already allow "just in case" sealings to make sure that a woman is sealed to the correct husband.  Why would they need to make an exception to a rule when the rule already produces the desired result?  

If the FP was only concerned that a woman be sealed to the correct man, all they would need to do is just have the woman wait until death to be and seal her to both.  Like they already do in the majority of cases.

I think the idea of eternal polyandry goes against doctrine and is a level of speculation beyond the mark.  But I'm content that we've reached an impasse.  As always I appreciate your style of discussion.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the idea of eternal polyandry goes against doctrine and is a level of speculation beyond the mark.  But I'm content that we've reached an impasse.  As always I appreciate your style of discussion.

Fair enough.  I appreciate your style of discussion as well and always find a lot of value in what you have to say. 

But can you answer one more question, because I think it's a good one and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Why do you think the FP would need to make an exception to a rule and allow a few women to be sealed to more than one man while alive to ensure that the woman is sealed to the correct husband, when the rule (that a woman can be sealed to as many husbands as she had after she has died) already produces that desired result?

 

[JLHPROF]

48 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Fair enough.  I appreciate your style of discussion as well and always find a lot of value in what you have to say. 

But can you answer one more question, because I think it's a good one and I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Why do you think the FP would need to make an exception to a rule and allow a few women to be sealed to more than one man while alive to ensure that the woman is sealed to the correct husband, when the rule (that a woman can be sealed to as many husbands as she had after she has died) already produces that desired result?

 

I believe they allow for agency.  I also think that having one policy for the dead and one for the living often doesn't make much sense.  "We'll seal you to both your husbands just in case but you have to wait till you're dead".  Yeah, kind of a silly concept.
But again I don't see this as any indication the FP is creating eternal polyandrous unions.
I'd be very interested if those who received such approvals were led to believe by the FP that a polyandrous union was being created.  I doubt very much that such an implication was made.

Now I know Calm makes this a question of "well aren't these ordinances all equally effective?  The keys have the power to seal right?"
I see it differently. 

I'm going to propose a slightly ridiculous (wouldn't be allowed and would never happen) scenario but one I think is similar:
Let's say I have a son who has a stepfather in the Church and just for the sake of discussion he and I are both worthy priesthood holders.
He takes the boy and ordains him a Teacher the first Sunday of the Month.  I take the boy and ordain him a Deacon the second Sunday of the Month.  Both ordinations are valid.  Is the boy a Deacon or a Teacher?
Well, obviously he'd be a Teacher right?  Both ordinations were authoritative, equally valid and those involved in the ordinance held the keys to perform it.

But one supersedes the other.  It's doesn't create something that can't exist - a Deacon/Teacher hybrid.
And polyandrous families are no different.  They simply don't exist in my opinion based in scripture and precedence.  It doesn't matter how authoritative the sealing is - one sealing supersedes the other.

Edited August 3, 2021 by JLHPROF

[smac97]

On 7/31/2021 at 7:24 PM, kimpearson said:

In my 60 years of being active in the Church I have listened to probably close to a thousand women voice real concerns and struggles with the concept of polygamy.  I have watched a significant number of those women put polygamy on the proverbial shelf only to have that shelf break with polygamy being one of the primary factors.  In the discussions above, I see men not trying very hard or even at all to understand how women might feel about polygamy. 

I've said this previously:

Quote

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.
...
Having qualms about polygamy is understandable from a sociological/cultural perspective is understandable.  My parents recently returned from a mission in Zimbabwe, where polygamy has long been a part of their culture.  Members of the Church seem to have very little unease about the Church's polygamous past.  The discomfort is, in the end, personal and subject and cultural.  That's not, I think, a flaw in the doctrine.

Rejecting the doctrine outright, however, is rather hard to reconcile with D&C 132 (and Jacob 2).

And here:

Quote

As to the former (19th-century polygamy), there appears to have been a hodge podge of results.  Polygamy, as viewed generally over time, worked well in some families, so-so in others, and terribly in yet others.

I have polygamous ancestors on both sides of my family.  It appears to have worked well for both sets.  The family history stories I have heard (which, owing to my dad's fondness for history, are not whitewashed) indicate the women generally got along, helped each other with child-rearing, cooking, chores, etc.  There was much persecution at times.  My paternal GGF was imprisoned for a while because he was a polygamist.  His wives came together and worked together during his extended absence.

As to the latter, I don't give it much thought.  Should I attain the Celestial Kingdom, we'll find out there if it will be practiced.  And if so, it will be practiced under circumstances profoundly superior, in terms of situation, righteousness, enlightenment, willingness, etc., than the rough-hewn exemplars of polygamy we saw in 19th-century Mormonism.  For example, the power dynamics you discuss above will be utterly non-existent in the Celestial Kingdom, having been extinguished by the perfecting power of the Atonement.  Exalted beings will have cast off the human frailties and weaknesses that make polygamy (and pretty much every other human endeavor) imperfectly attempted in this life.

And here (pertaining to a 2016 book by Caryl Lynn Pearson wherein she called for the Church to repudiate polygamy altogether) :

Quote

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).

I also previously observed that much of the angst about polygamy may be accentuated because, well, the people who talk about and emphasize polygamy are those who are not comfortable with it, or obsess about it.  See, e.g., here (also pertaining to Carol Lynn Pearson's book, which included supposed results from "polls" of Latter-day Saint women) :

Quote

And from Sis. Pearson's FB page:

Quote

SENDING DEEP THANKS TO THE MORE THAN 8000 PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE SURVEY MAKING POSSIBLE MY NEW BOOK: THE GHOST OF ETERNAL POLYGAMY. Just over two years ago I sent out a survey through social media, asking Mormons and former Mormons—men, women, conservative, liberal, active, inactive--to express their opinions on the LDS teaching about eternal polygamy and the inequality in the sealing practices. On day one, more than 2400 people completed the survey. Four weeks later, the number was more than 8000.
...
Your stories were sacred to me. I spent a summer reading through more than 2500, categorizing them, choosing many for my book. This week I am going to share just a few of those stories, showing the terrible pain that continues to be inflicted on thousands in our community.

So, yeah.  An online poll.  Participants were self-selected.  No controls.  Self-selection bias.  Big time.  And yet Sis. Pearson is treating the results of this poll as substantive and meaningful.

Meanwhile, however, there seems to be some pushback to the narrative Sis. Pearson is presenting, as evidenced from the comments on her FB post about the poll:

• You know what.... THIS is nothing to waste your emotional energy on in the life time. Know that God loves you and knows you, He is just, He is good, and He is fair. These things will all work out in the end, because THAT is the God I believe in. So relax! Live your life to its fullest. Be a good person, do your best and God will take care of the rest. "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy path."
• I struggled with this doctrine but at the same time had a strong testimony of the Book of Mormon and of the Restoration. I couldn't equate those two facts with Joseph being a "fallen prophet". So, as we should do whenever we question a troubling point of doctrine, I took it to the Lord. It took some faith and fasting and prayer, but I received the spiritual witness that despite my "mortal lenses" that this doctrine is a true one and it is anything but demeaning and derogatory to women. Quite the contrary. I will take flack for saying so, but it doesn't matter because I know what I now know.  I had a profound experience in the temple that laid out this doctrine before me and helped me to understand. God's ways are not our ways, and for some doctrines to make any sense, you MUST take away the mortal/temporal way of viewing things. I cannot explain in words the understanding I now have, but I will express just a couple of thoughts that will hopefully get people out of their myopic view of this subject...
• Polygamy doesn't seem like punishment to me. You are not forced to live any of God's laws. You can choose to or not. I know for myself that I will choose polygamy because nothing will be taken away from me! I will only be added upon in the next life! I can't imagine the joy I will feel as many daughters of our Heavenly Father will be sealed to my husband so they can receive their exaltation!

And lest I be accused (again) of "mansplaining" anything, the above quotes are from women.

And here (speaking of Carol Lynn Pearson's call to decanonize D&C 132) :

Quote

Quote

You either believe it's a revelation or it's not and go from there. 

Well, I don't think that's all there is to it.  I think we need to study and introspection is in order.  Why we believe X is just as important as what X actually is.  Consider this description by Elder Maxwell regarding some of the Savior's teachings:

Quote

The more declarative Jesus was, the more tentative some followers. Is this not the same today? As long as Jesus’ church and its prophets are doing certain things of which people fully approve, there is admiration. But when modern prophets begin to be declarative, then it is a very different matter!

“The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.” (John 6:41.)

“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (John 6:66.)

Some additional thoughts from Sister Ardeth G. Kapp here: 

Quote

Sometimes we are shortsighted and are not aware of what awaits us just around the corner following our obedience. We do not “receive a witness until after the trial of [our] faith” (Ether 12:6). We don’t negotiate with our Father in Heaven on these matters. The laws are in place. We know that “there is a law. . . upon which all blessings are predicated,” and we know that when we receive any blessing “it is by obedience to that law” (D&C 130:20).

And so our Father, wanting us to qualify for all of the blessings, has given us laws and commandments. These commandments are given not to restrict us but to redeem us—not to just reform us but to exalt us. Therefore, as Nephi said, “Cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life” (2 Nephi 10:23).

Some of us will resent, resist, even recoil from the apparent restrictions imposed upon us. And so it was in the Savior’s time. There were those who didn’t like what he taught. “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” they said. “When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?” (John 6:60–61). And we read that “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (John 6:66).

Polygamy is a toughie.  I readily concede that.  But rejection of it based on emotion, based on it being uncomfortable, would be problematic.  Some of the Savior's followers were not able/willing to abide by some of this teachings, and so left 'and walked no more with him."  Others, however, withstood the difficulties because, notwithstanding the strangeness and difficulty of some of the things the Savior, they knew something:

Quote

66 ¶From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

But I guess that just brings us back to the question of whether D&C 132 is revelatory or not.  For those who think it is not, I would like to ear a reasoned, evidentiary argument in favor of that proposition.

And here (also about Caroly Lynn Pearson's book) :

Quote

Quote

If the church would acknowledge that God was not the author of polygamy, renounce its practice, scrub D&C 132, and change temple-marriage policies, Pearson believes it would have a profound impact on current Mormons.

"If the church would acknowledge that God..."  Gotta luv the objective journalism of Peggy Fletcher Stack and The Trib these days.  Here there are, actually taking sides regarding God authoring (or not authoring) a religious doctrine.  And they do so under the guise of "reporting" "news."

The provenance of 19th century LDS polygamy is a matter of faith.  It's not some objectively quantified fact to be "acknowledged."

Quote

Men and women would have an “equal status in eyes of God,” she believes, and young women and widows would be “spared the wounding to our femaleness that we receive today.”

Oh, brother.  I think there are better ways to improve the Church than reducing the women in it to some collective of dainty snowflakes.

There are better ways to improve the Church than for self-appointed ark-steadiers to declare what is and is not scripture or doctrine.

There are better ways to improve the Church than to import the Gender Wars into it and use them as a rhetorical pretext for usurping the role of the Presiding High Priest.

What's next?  Do we retroactively abandon animal sacrifice and the consumption of animal flesh in the scriptures so that the Vegans and animal lovers among us won't be "triggered?"  ("The Bible describes the Resurrected Lord as eating 'a piece of a broiled fish ... {and} an honeycomb.'  Agh!  We must 'acknowledge' that God is not the author of such savagery!  We must excise Luke 24 from the Bible, lest my 'vegetarianness' be 'wounded!'")

Do we appoint Sis. Pearson to be Grand Inquisitor?  What other doctrines will she (and she alone, apparently) decide unacceptably infringe on our dainty selves?  

Sis. Pearson must know that the thesis of her book is a non-starter.  She's far too intelligent.  And yet here she is, crossing the Rubicon.  I think that's an appropriate conclusion when we see a self-selected member of the Church publicly promoting the abandonment of scripture because she and her supporters don't like it.

The thing is, this isn't even a judgment call as far as working within the Restored Gospel.  I can respect, to some extent, the position taken by Kate Kelly and her ilk.  I despised their tactics, but at least their theory had a remotely plausible basis.  Female ordination arguably fits within a doctrinal lacuna, so at least they made some effort to present the possibility that the doctrinal framework of the Church could accommodate it.

But Sis. Pearson is proposing something even more radical than Kate Kelly ever did.  Sis. Pearson is publicly promoting the abandonment of unequivocally established scriptures and doctrine, based purely on her dislike of it.  The brazenness of it is astounding.  AFAICS, she's not even pretending to have a revelatory or evidentiary or logical basis for her proposal.  Such things are not part of her equation.  Rather, she's simply saying that some people don't like the doctrine of polygamy, so we should abandon it and renounce the revelations pertaining to it.

The Rubicon has been crossed.  That is saddening.  

A few weeks ago a friend of mine commented that when life gets a bit too easy for some folks, they go out and start looking for things to feel strongly about.  Outraged, even.  Not necessarily because the issue is particularly relevant and impactful, but because it helps the individual feel like they are doing something important.  

I get that.  I respect it, even.  But I think it has its limits.  In my view, I think we go pretty far afield when we fret about polygamy.  It has been prohibited in the Church for 130+ years.  It affects us only in abstract ways, and such effects are almost entirely of our own choosing.  We're bothered because we choose to be so.

John 6 is a good reminder of keeping the right headspace.

On 7/31/2021 at 7:24 PM, kimpearson said:

I would be curious to hear any of you give your thoughts on how you would explain polygamy to a questioning sister in this day and age where we have the proclamation on the family, women serving on councils and a revamping of the temple ceremony to equalize women. 

See above.

I would express the same thoughts to any questioning men as well.  Believe me, there are plenty of guys who also are not thrilled at the prospect.

On 7/31/2021 at 7:24 PM, kimpearson said:

I would hope for something more than "we don't understand it all and need to not worry about it as all will be explained in the next life". 

Well, see above.

I would also direct them to competent and fairminded scholarship on the matter, particularly by Brian and Laura Hales.

On 7/31/2021 at 7:24 PM, kimpearson said:

I personally believe God allowed polygamy because of repeated requests from Joseph much like his requests about the lost 116 pages. 

Okay.  Do you have evidence of these "repeated requests?"

Also, if Joseph Smith was so eager to participate in polygamy, how do you explain his reluctance to participate in polygamy (as evidenced in the "some twenty different reminiscences that recount Joseph Smith’s encounters with a sword-bearing angel who commanded him to establish the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the early 1840s" compiled by Brian Hales)?

On 7/31/2021 at 7:24 PM, kimpearson said:

Joseph and the Church as a whole needed to learn the polygamy doesn't work for eternal relationships between two people and creates families where children often have strained relationships with their fathers.

If "polygamy doesn't work for eternal relationships," how do you account for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?  And D&C 132?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2021 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, mgy401 said:

I believe the policy has been that a living woman can only be sealed to one man at a time.  (I thought I may have heard about that changing recently, though I could be wrong.) 

But I think the policy has always been that a woman may posthumously be sealed to all of her legal husbands.  

Huh.  Do you have a reference for that?  I'd like to read more about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mgy401]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  Do you have a reference for that?  I'd like to read more about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

See the General Handbook, 38.4.1.7 re the proxy sealing of dead women to all legal husbands.  

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe they allow for agency.  I also think that having one policy for the dead and one for the living often doesn't make much sense.  "We'll seal you to both your husbands just in case but you have to wait till you're dead".  Yeah, kind of a silly concept.

It's not a silly concept if sealings really do bind in heaven, and polyamory is wrong.

Quote

I'm going to propose a slightly ridiculous (wouldn't be allowed and would never happen) scenario but one I think is similar:
Let's say I have a son who has a stepfather in the Church and just for the sake of discussion he and I are both worthy priesthood holders.
He takes the boy and ordains him a Teacher the first Sunday of the Month.  I take the boy and ordain him a Deacon the second Sunday of the Month.  Both ordinations are valid.  Is the boy a Deacon or a Teacher?
Well, obviously he'd be a Teacher right?  Both ordinations were authoritative, equally valid and those involved in the ordinance held the keys to perform it.

But one supersedes the other.  It's doesn't create something that can't exist - a Deacon/Teacher hybrid.
And polyandrous families are no different.  They simply don't exist in my opinion based in scripture and precedence.  It doesn't matter how authoritative the sealing is - one sealing supersedes the other.

I get what you are saying.  I don't have a problem with that perspective and it's reasonable.

From my perspective, the ordination to become a deacon was actually invalid, because he was already ordained to be a teacher and ordinations don't work that way.  The ordination to be a teacher didn't supersede the other ordination because the ordination was never efficacious.  

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've said this previously:

And here:

And here (pertaining to a 2016 book by Caryl Lynn Pearson wherein she called for the Church to repudiate polygamy altogether) :

I also previously observed that much of the angst about polygamy may be accentuated because, well, the people who talk about and emphasize polygamy are those who are not comfortable with it, or obsess about it.  See, e.g., here (also pertaining to Carol Lynn Pearson's book, which included supposed results from "polls" of Latter-day Saint women) :

And here (speaking of Carol Lynn Pearson's call to decanonize D&C 132) :

And here (also about Caroly Lynn Pearson's book) :

A few weeks ago a friend of mine commented that when life gets a bit too easy for some folks, they go out and start looking for things to feel strongly about.  Outraged, even.  Not necessarily because the issue is particularly relevant and impactful, but because it helps the individual feel like they are doing something important.  

I get that.  I respect it, even.  But I think it has its limits.  In my view, I think we go pretty far afield when we fret about polygamy.  It has been prohibited in the Church for 130+ years.  It affects us only in abstract ways, and such effects are almost entirely of our own choosing.  We're bothered because we choose to be so.

John 6 is a good reminder of keeping the right headspace.

See above.

I would express the same thoughts to any questioning men as well.  Believe me, there are plenty of guys who also are not thrilled at the prospect.

Well, see above.

I would also direct them to competent and fairminded scholarship on the matter, particularly by Brian and Laura Hales.

Okay.  Do you have evidence of these "repeated requests?"

Also, if Joseph Smith was so eager to participate in polygamy, how do you explain his reluctance to participate in polygamy (as evidenced in the "some twenty different reminiscences that recount Joseph Smith’s encounters with a sword-bearing angel who commanded him to establish the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the early 1840s" compiled by Brian Hales)?

If "polygamy doesn't work for eternal relationships," how do you account for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?  And D&C 132?

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe JS wanted to have more than one woman. That's my true feelings, and I could be wrong. I say this because I believe if JS were to restore the church, he wouldn't restore something that's already been put away, such as animal sacrifice. Why would he restore things in the Old Testament? I think he saw it happened in the Bible and used it for his purposes. Remember he went to the grove and prayed for forgiveness? I believe he may have had a problem with women, or with lustful things in his life. And I believe a few others thought polygamy was the answer so that men wouldn't go to ladies in the night etc. 

But that's just me. I believe JS was very fallible.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Huh.  Do you have a reference for that?  I'd like to read more about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

38.4.1.2

Sealing of Living Members after Divorce

Women. A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later divorces him, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime (see 38.4.1.4).
A living woman who is not currently married may be sealed to a deceased husband, even if they were divorced in life. A living woman who is currently married may not be sealed to a deceased husband without First Presidency approval.

Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and later divorced, the man must receive a sealing clearance from the First Presidency before another woman may be sealed to him (see 38.4.1.4). A sealing clearance is necessary even if (1) the previous sealing has been canceled or (2) the divorced wife is now deceased.
A sealing clearance is needed if a man is divorced from the woman who was most recently sealed to him. For example, if a man received a sealing clearance to be sealed to a second wife after a divorce and his second wife dies, he would not need a sealing clearance to be sealed again.

38.4.1.3

Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death

Women. After a living woman has been sealed to a husband in the temple, she may not be sealed again unless she receives a cancellation of the first sealing.

Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a sealing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she died (see 38.4.1.2 for the policy in cases of divorce).

Before a living spouse can be sealed to a deceased spouse, he or she must receive signed consent from the deceased spouse’s widow or widower (if there is one).

38.4.1.7

Sealing of Deceased Members

Deceased Women. A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before a deceased woman may be sealed to other men to whom she was married. This includes former husbands from whom she was divorced.

Deceased Men. A deceased man may have sealed to him all women to whom he was legally married during his life if they are deceased or if they are living and are not sealed to another man.

Deceased Couples Who Were Divorced. Deceased couples who were divorced may be sealed by proxy. These sealings often provide the only way for children of such couples to be sealed to parents. See 28.3.8 for a restriction if either the husband or wife had Church membership withdrawn or had resigned membership at the time of death. First Presidency approval is required for the sealing of a deceased couple who obtained a cancellation of their sealing in life.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective, the ordination to become a deacon was actually invalid, because he was already ordained to be a teacher and ordinations don't work that way.  The ordination to be a teacher didn't supersede the other ordination because the ordination was never efficacious.  

I feel the same way about sealings.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

But a man doesn't have to worry about his wife choosing a polygamous marriage for him after he's dead but she's still alive. 

Neither man nor woman need "worry" about such things, I think.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

That is why comparisons to how a man might not want to be polygamous either don't help much. 

It wasn't really a comparison.  Rather, it was an "Also..."

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

They are apples to oranges, in the context that we are referring to it. 

Well, no.  Both men and women have reasons for being uncomfortable with the doctrine.  

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

In the past, when a man might have been commanded to live it who didn't want to, the comparison works much better.  But that is not the reality that we are dealing with today.

Women aren't "commanded to live it {today}" either.  Nobody is.  

And if women can "worry" about polygamy in the hereafter, then so can men.  (That said, I think neither should.)

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

And I also don't find comparisons of polygamy and animal sacrifice very relevant. 

I think it's quite relevant.  An animal rights activist might could well find the doctrine abhorrent, even though it has no actual impact on her in the here and now.

Similarly, a woman in the here and now can find polygamy abhorrent, even though it has no actual impact on her in the here and now.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Polygamy, for women, is not some unpleasant thing they read about.  It's an actual possibility of their eternity.

Polygamy in the hereafter, if it happens, will be a matter of choice.  It will not be compulsory.  It will not be "some unpleasant thing."  And in the hereafter will will have a profoundly greater perspective on such things.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't agree that polygamy is on the same footing as animal sacrifice, or that it's not currently being practiced.  It is currently being practiced, just not here on earth.

A pretty big distinction, that.  

If God authorizes polygamy "not here on Earth," and if an individual "on Earth" finds it abhorrent, then the issue seems to be more properly attributable to the blinkered and finite perspective of the individual.  The alternative is that God authorizes something evil or wicked, which I don't think we can say.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think any women are worried that they might be forced to sacrifice an animal against their will after they die or lose their chance at exaltation with their husband, but that is exactly what some women are worried about in regards to polygamy. 

Any person who is "worried that they might be forced" to enter into polygamy "after they die" is not in the right headspace.  There is no basis for such speculations in the Restored Gospel.

And again, there are plenty of men who also don't like the idea of polygamy.  

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

To the point that I know of one woman who refuses to get sealed in the temple to her husband because she's so afraid of it happening to her.

I hope she gives the matter further thought and study.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

As I said in a previous post, women know that God won't force them to be in a polygamous marriage,

Including the woman "who refuses to get sealed in the temple?"

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

BUT, if their husband gets sealed to another woman after they are dead, a lot of women view their choices between polygamous marriage they don't want or losing a beloved husband.  In that sense, the idea that they won't be forced into it brings no comfort to them.

This seems a lot like tilting at windmills, TBH.  As Winston Churchill put it: “When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened.”

Life has enough troubles of its own.  Formulating more based almost entirely on fear and ignorance and speculation seems like a very bad idea.  King Benjamin got it right, I think: "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."  (Mosiah 4:9.)

So did Isaiah: "For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee."  (Isaiah 54:7.)

Thanks,

-Smac

 

d

Edited August 3, 2021 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe JS wanted to have more than one woman.

The historical record seems to indicate otherwise.

Quote

I say this because I believe if JS were to restore the church, he wouldn't restore something that's already been put away, such as animal sacrifice. Why would he restore things in the Old Testament? I think he saw it happened in the Bible and used it for his purposes.

Joseph understood the difference between the patriarchal order (IE Adam -> Abraham) and the Mosaic law (Aaronic laws).  He wasn't trying to bring back the Law of Moses but he was trying to become as Abraham who received extraordinary eternal blessings because of his obedience.
And Joseph also taught animal sacrifice would resume at some point.

But go ahead and think the worst of him.  You'd hardly be the first in history to do so.

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I feel the same way about sealings.

And that leads us right back into the issue of the FP sometimes (rarely) allowing--from your perspective--sealings that they know are not efficacious.  And how that's kind of....icky.   

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The historical record seems to indicate otherwise.

Joseph understood the difference between the patriarchal order (IE Adam -> Abraham) and the Mosaic law (Aaronic laws).  He wasn't trying to bring back the Law of Moses but he was trying to become as Abraham who received extraordinary eternal blessings because of his obedience.
And Joseph also taught animal sacrifice would resume at some point.

But go ahead and think the worst of him.  You'd hardly be the first in history to do so.

It's a tough subject I guess. And in my mind are comments by church leaders that forever burn in my mind that aren't very kind to women. These may be anti statements found in LDS books, not sure. So I guess I have a desire to one day find the truth and hear Joseph's answers. I'll try to give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Because I didn't live back then, but I did read that the average age was early 20's to marry, so I wish JS would have chose more wisely on that note.

 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Silly question, but sure, why not?

 

 

Why is it a silly question? Oh wait, this whole thread and discussion is rather silly. It is based on false premises that are not real. So much angst over something that will never be.

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

Quote

I personally believe God allowed polygamy because of repeated requests from Joseph much like his requests about the lost 116 pages. 

Okay.  Do you have evidence of these "repeated requests?"

Also, if Joseph Smith was so eager to participate in polygamy, how do you explain his reluctance to participate in polygamy (as evidenced in the "some twenty different reminiscences that recount Joseph Smith’s encounters with a sword-bearing angel who commanded him to establish the practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the early 1840s" compiled by Brian Hales)?

I believe JS wanted to have more than one woman. That's my true feelings, and I could be wrong.

In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

If you have evidence that Joseph Smith "wanted to have more than one women," that "God allowed polygamy because of repeated requests from Joseph," then I would like to see that evidence.

If all you've got is rank speculation and gossip, then I'll lend that the credit it deserves.

I've commented on this sort of speculation before:

Quote

Polygamy is a difficult topic, to be sure.  This is why I think context and measured evaluation and decorum and civility are so important.  Instead, we get superficial, decontextualized potshots from people like Jeremy Runnells.  It's too important a topic to treat with such crassness and vapidity.

I believe polygamy came from God and not from man.  The contrary proposition assumes too much about the character and motivations and circumstances of Joseph Smith.  As a man of considerable prominence and authority and influence, he would have had all sorts of opportunities to quietly engage in sexual misconduct.  Contriving a revival of the ancient biblical practice of polygamy as a pretext for sexual indiscretion just seems like overkill, like using a sledgehammer to squash a spider. 

It also doesn't account for the spectrum of women Joseph Smith purportedly married.  Nobody affects a leering tone when discussing Elizabeth Davis  (50), Sarah Kingsley (53), Fanny Young (56),  and Rhoda Richards (58).  Strangely enough, these ladies seem to escape the attention of the critics altogether.  They don't fit the oh-my-stars-and-garters!-Joseph-Smith-was-lecherous-because-he-married-teenagers! narrative, I guess. 

It also doesn't account for God's supervision of Joseph Smith.  Joseph was repeatedly rebuked by God for, it seems, errors and transgressions far less serious than what you propose: that Joseph fabricated a revelation authorizing/mandating polygamy, presented it as a revelation from God, began to act in accordance with it, and did all these things with the wicked and depraved motive of rationalizing adultery/fornication.  So it seems odd that God would rebuke Joseph Smith for losing 116 pages, but then overlook/ignore Joseph Smith doing what is being suggested here.

It also doesn't account for what we know of the character of Joseph Smith.  It requires us to assume/presume the worst about Joseph Smith.  It also relies altogether too heavily on historical lacunae, gaps in the historical record.  There are tremendous amounts of data that we simply do not have.  There are probably many things that we don't even know that we don't know.

All that said, I concede that the practice of polygamy in some particular instances may have been poorly, perhaps even improperly, implemented in some respects.  I am not sure it's within our province to pass judgment on such things, or to have speculative, gossipy, public discussions about them.

Just food for thought.

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I say this because I believe if JS were to restore the church, he wouldn't restore something that's already been put away, such as animal sacrifice.

What does that have to do with him fabricating a pretext for instituting polygamy?

And what do you make of this (from FAIR): Question: Did Joseph Smith teach animal sacrifice as part of the "restoration of all things"?

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why would he restore things in the Old Testament?

He seemed to have been following orders.  See this entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Restoration of All Things

Quote

The concept of a restoration of all things is biblical and is frequently spoken of in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Peter spoke of the anticipated "times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Acts 3:21). Latter-day Saints understand this as a prophetic anticipation of a full and final restoration of the gospel in the development and fulfillment of the purposes of God in the last days. The current era is therefore called the dispensation of the fulness of times in which all things will be gathered together in Christ (Eph. 1:10; D&C 27:13). The Church teaches that every gospel truth and blessing, and all priesthood authority, keys, ordinances, and covenants necessary for mankind's eternal salvation have been, or will be, restored in this dispensation. In this manner, the blessings of dispensations past will "flow into the most glorious and greatest of dispensations, like clear streams flowing into a mighty river" (DS 1:168).

The restoration spoken of in the scriptures involves more than a reestablishment of the Church and the function of saving ordinances. Scattered Israel will be gathered, the second coming of Christ will occur, the Millennium will begin, the kingdom of God will be established worldwide, and "the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory" (A of F 10).

The Prophet Joseph Smith testified that he was visited by divine messengers from former dispensations who conferred upon him priesthood powers and restored ordinances, doctrines, and blessings that existed in their dispensations. A brief outline follows:
...
The restoration will result in the culmination of all of God's purposes on the earth. The scriptures even speak of a reshaping of the land surfaces, with a coming together of the continents (D&C 133:23-24; cf. Gen. 10:25).

The fundamental purpose of the restoration is to prepare the Church and the world to receive their King, the Lord Jesus Christ. Latter-day Saints view the restoration of all things as the work of God preparatory to the time when all old things shall become new, with a new heaven and a new earth. The restoration will include resurrection, regeneration, and renewal to all life upon the earth and the glorification of the earth itself, when it becomes a celestial sphere (Isa. 65:17; Matt. 19:28; Rev. 21:1; D&C 29:22-25;88:17-20, 25-26). As explained by Alma, referring in particular to the resurrection, "the plan of restoration is requisite with the justice of God; …that all things should be restored to their proper order" (Alma 41:2).

See also here:

Quote

The institution of the practice of polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things"

Polygamy was not permitted only for the purpose of procreation. Joseph established the practice of plural marriage as part of the "restoration of all things," (D&C 132: 40, 45) and introduced it to a number of others within the Church. This alone may have been the purpose of Joseph's initiation of the practice. The establishment of the practice ultimately did have the effect of "raising up seed"...just not through Joseph Smith.

As Brian Hales writes:

Joseph Smith dictated what is now Doctrine and Covenant section 132 on July 12, 1843. This revelation, along with his other statements, provide several reasons why he believed plural marriage could be introduced among the Latter-day Saints.

The earliest justification mentioned by the Prophet was as a part of the “restitution of all things” prophesied in Acts 3:19–21. Old Testament prophets practiced polygamy, so it could be a part of the restoration of “all things” (see D&C 132:40, 45).

Several members who knew Joseph Smith left accounts of him referring to a connection between the two during the Kirtland period.

Benjamin F. Johnson recalled in 1903: “In 1835 at Kirtland I learned from my Sisters Husband, Lyman R. Shirman,^[1] who was close to the Prophet, and Received it from him. That the ancient order of plural marriage was again to be practiced by the Church.”^[2]

A few years later in 1841, Joseph Smith attempted to broach the topic publicly. Helen Mar Kimball remembered: “He [Joseph] astonished his hearers by preaching on the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so it would be again, etc.”^[3] Joseph Smith was a prophet-restorer, which helps to explain why the command to practice plural marriage has been labeled a “restoration,” even though it is not a salvific ordinance.^[4]

Brian and Laura Hales are really good resources for understanding polygamy.

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think he saw it happened in the Bible and used it for his purposes.

I don't.  There are far easier ways for a man in a position of prominence and authority to behave lecherously than re-instituting polygamy.  

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Remember he went to the grove and prayed for forgiveness?

From FAIR:

Quote

Question: What was Joseph Smith's motivation for going to the grove to pray in 1820?

Joseph had two motivations: obtain a forgiveness of sins, and a desire to know which church was right

Joseph Smith's stated motivation for praying to the Lord changes between the first known account of the First Vision (1832) and the official version of it (1838). The 1832 account emphasizes his desire for a forgiveness of sins, and the 1838 (official) account emphasizes his desire to know which church was right. Some critic claim that Joseph changed his story in later years.

The texts that are employed by critics to justify the charge of 'differing motivations' are as follows:

1832

"I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and obtain mercy"

1838

"My object in going to enquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join."

...

Historian Christopher Jones has observed that Joseph Smith's 1832 account (and indeed much of his other three accounts) are shaped as Methodist conversion narratives. Within Methodism (and indeed the broader religious culture of Joseph Smith's day), finding forgiveness of sins and joining the right Church rode in tandem. You receive forgiveness of sins by joining the right Church. If you don't follow the correct, "biblical" doctrine then you can't receive such forgiveness.^[1] In the case of Joseph Smith, he receives forgiveness of sins and is told not to join any church with which he was acquainted at the time.

 

d

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I believe he may have had a problem with women, or with lustful things in his life.

From JS-H 1:28 (written circa 1838, I believe) (emphasis added) :

Quote

During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three—having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me—I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

Joseph never confessed to what you are attributing to him.  And you are not presenting evidence in support of your attribution, just your "feelings."

41 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I believe a few others thought polygamy was the answer so that men wouldn't go to ladies in the night etc. 

But that's just me. I believe JS was very fallible.

Oh, so do I.  But I'll not attribute to him such serious accusations without some real competent evidence.

What's next?  Are you going to suggest, based on "feellings" but no competent evidence, that he was a child molester too?  Moroni sure did call it:

Quote

He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 3, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Neither man nor woman need "worry" about such things, I think.

That doesn't offer any comfort to those women who are worried about it though.  

Quote

Well, no.  Both men and women have reasons for being uncomfortable with the doctrine.  

Sure. 

But both men and women do not have reasons to worry that a spouse will make their marriage polygamous without their consent after they die.  That's the specific topic I'm speaking on and that's something only the women have to worry about.

And that's why I said the comparison didn't work.

Quote

Women aren't "commanded to live it {today}" either.  Nobody is.  

Not in mortality.  But our post-mortal existence is no less real than our mortal one.  And right now, the church is currently and actively creating polygamous marriages that are literally affecting real women.

(at least, they are if our doctrine on the subject is true).

Quote

And if women can "worry" about polygamy in the hereafter, then so can men.  (That said, I think neither should.)

A woman can worry that her living husband will make their marriage polygamous after her death.  Can a man worry about that?  No, because it's not possible according to our teachings and practices. 

This is why the  'so can men' reasoning doesn't work with the specific topic being discussed.

Quote

I think it's quite relevant.  An animal rights activist might could well find the doctrine abhorrent, even though it has no actual impact on her in the here and now.

Will it have an impact on them eternally?  If the answer is no, then it's not relevant to the discussion because we are specifically discussing the impact that will occur in the next life.

Quote

Polygamy in the hereafter, if it happens, will be a matter of choice.  It will not be compulsory.  It will not be "some unpleasant thing."  And in the hereafter will will have a profoundly greater perspective on such things.

This doesn't offer any comfort to those who really struggle with it.  I'm not sure a "don't worry about it" from someone not affected by the worry has ever offered any real comfort in any situation, and that's probably why so many women continue to struggle with this with no help in sight.

It would be like Jesus telling Mary and Martha not to worry about Lazarus's death. Thankfully, He chose to weep with them instead.

Quote

Including the woman "who refuses to get sealed in the temple?"

Yes.  She doesn't find the idea of having to choose between a polygamous marriage with such a husband in the next life, and not being with him at all, any more comforting that knowing that God will give her the option.

Quote

This seems a lot like tilting at windmills, TBH.  As Winston Churchill put it: “When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened.”

I would guess that most of the problems and worries that we go with to our Father in Heaven are nothing more than us tilting at windmills as well.  Thankfully, He still cares about them, and wants us to bring them to Him anyway.  

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Neither man nor woman need "worry" about such things, I think.

That doesn't offer any comfort to those women who are worried about it though.  

Depends on the woman, I suppose.  If the individual comes to understand and acknowledge that her (or his) worries are based predominantly on fear, ignorance, speculation, etc., then that context can help the individual in coping with, and perhaps even helping address and resolve, such concerns.

I occasionally have a client who comes to me with a concern about a hypothetical situation involving their case.  If the hypothetical is obscure, or unlikely, or mostly speculative, or just plain off, then I can help my client in assuaging the concern by pointing that out.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Well, no.  Both men and women have reasons for being uncomfortable with the doctrine.  

Sure. 

But both men and women do not have reasons to worry that a spouse will make their marriage polygamous without their consent after they die.  That's the specific topic I'm speaking on and that's something only the women have to worry about.

Seems like special pleading.

And in any event, such worries are overwhelmingly speculative, and based on ignorance and fear.  Both men and women do this.  And it's not healthy, productive or meaningful for them.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Women aren't "commanded to live it {today}" either.  Nobody is.  

Not in mortality.  But our post-mortal existence is no less real than our mortal one.  And right now, the church is currently and actively creating polygamous marriages that are literally affecting real women.

"Literally affecting" men, too.

And the Church is also "currently and actively teaching" that the Lord commanded and required animal sacrifice, which is "literally affecting real" people too.  That does not, however, mean that this effect is not arising almost entirely from ignorance, speculation and fear.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

And if women can "worry" about polygamy in the hereafter, then so can men.  (That said, I think neither should.)

A woman can worry that her living husband will make their marriage polygamous after her death.  Can a man worry about that?  No, because it's not possible according to our teachings and practices. 

Splitting hairs.  

A man may, based on speculation, ignorance and fear, indulge in fretting over polygamy in the hereafter.  Women can do this also.  Neither should.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

I think it's quite relevant.  An animal rights activist might could well find the doctrine abhorrent, even though it has no actual impact on her in the here and now.

Will it have an impact on them eternally? 

I'm sure a sufficiently agitated animal rights activist, reacting out of speculation and fear and ignorance, could say "Yes."

"Oh, I just cannot worship a God who required animal sacrifice.  That's evil, and any being who commanded it would be evil too.  I could never live in heaven with such a horrible being."

Of course, that person would be wrong to let fear and speculation and ignorance hold so much sway over himself.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the answer is no, then it's not relevant to the discussion because we are specifically discussing the impact that will occur in the next life.

Not quite.  The angst under discussion is arising now.   The ignorance and speculation and fear fueling that angst is arising now.  People are making decisions based on that angst now.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Polygamy in the hereafter, if it happens, will be a matter of choice.  It will not be compulsory.  It will not be "some unpleasant thing."  And in the hereafter will will have a profoundly greater perspective on such things.

This doesn't offer any comfort to those who really struggle with it. 

It certainly does for some.  Those who are willing to set aside their ignorance and fear and speculation, and to study the scriptures, and to exercise faith, will likely not end up tying themselves into emotional knots over such things.

Conversely, we can really help people who are bound and determined to stew in anxiety borne of ignorance, speculation and fear. 

And encouraging such people to continue in that course of action, and ratifying and affirmating fears that are borne of ignorance and speculation, will not help them either.

I can have empathy with someone struggling with fear without joining them in it.  I occasionally have clients who "really struggle" with hypotheticals, with 'what if" scenarios they formulate.  With most of them I can get them through these fears, but some become paralyzed.  It's mostly the fear, I think.  Fear of things they don't know much about.  Fear of things that in their speculations and imagination have or will become the-sky-is-falling-esque calamities.

I think it can be helpful to point that out.  The Restored Gospel is based on faith, not fear.  On trust in God, not anxiety about a parade of fabricated "what if" horribles.  

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

This seems a lot like tilting at windmills, TBH.  As Winston Churchill put it: “When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened.”

I would guess that most of the problems and worries that we go with to our Father in Heaven are nothing more than us tilting at windmills as well. 

When that happens, we don't do ourselves any favors by refusing to trust Him about such things, and when we instead insist on clinging to fears borne of speculation and ignorance.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thankfully, He still cares about them, and wants us to bring them to Him anyway.  

Yes.  But he also wants us to obey Him.

And it's not like He hasn't given us answers to such things:

• "Fear not to do good, my sons, for whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap; therefore, if ye sow good ye shall also reap good for your reward.  Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.  Behold, I do not condemn you; go your ways and sin no more; perform with soberness the work which I have commanded you.  Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.  Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen."  (D&C 6:33-37.)
• "But now I tell it unto you, and ye are blessed, not because of your iniquity, neither your hearts of unbelief; for verily some of you are guilty before me, but I will be merciful unto your weakness.  Therefore, be ye strong from henceforth; fear not, for the kingdom is yours."  (D&C 38:15.)
• "Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things — Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof — Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.  And all they who suffer persecution for my name, and endure in faith, though they are called to lay down their lives for my sake yet shall they partake of all this glory.  Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full."  (D&C 101:32-36.)
• "Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever."  (D&C 122:9.)
• "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."  (Mosiah 4:9.)
• "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  (1 Cor. 2:9.)

We have all sorts of reason for optimism and joy at what we will experience in the hereafter.  I understand that some people are instead choosing to steep themselves in fear, and that is unfortunate.  But I don't think we do them much of a favor by validating such things.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

If you have evidence that Joseph Smith "wanted to have more than one women," that "God allowed polygamy because of repeated requests from Joseph," then I would like to see that evidence.

If all you've got is rank speculation and gossip, then I'll lend that the credit it deserves.

I've commented on this sort of speculation before:

Just food for thought.

What does that have to do with him fabricating a pretext for instituting polygamy?

And what do you make of this (from FAIR): Question: Did Joseph Smith teach animal sacrifice as part of the "restoration of all things"?

He seemed to have been following orders.  See this entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Restoration of All Things

See also here:

Brian and Laura Hales are really good resources for understanding polygamy.

I don't.  There are far easier ways for a man in a position of prominence and authority to behave lecherously than re-instituting polygamy.  

From FAIR:

d

From JS-H 1:28 (written circa 1838, I believe) (emphasis added) :

Joseph never confessed to what you are attributing to him.  And you are not presenting evidence in support of your attribution, just your "feelings."

Oh, so do I.  But I'll not attribute to him such serious accusations without some real competent evidence.

What's next?  Are you going to suggest, based on "feellings" but no competent evidence, that he was a child molester too?  Moroni sure did call it:

Thanks,

-Smac

You mentioned our opinions, but sometimes my opinions go too far. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Depends on the woman, I suppose.  If the individual comes to understand and acknowledge that her (or his) worries are based predominantly on fear, ignorance, speculation, etc., then that context can help the individual in coping with, and perhaps even helping address and resolve, such concerns.

I occasionally have a client who comes to me with a concern about a hypothetical situation involving their case.  If the hypothetical is obscure, or unlikely, or mostly speculative, or just plain off, then I can help my client in assuaging the concern by pointing that out.

Seems like special pleading.

And in any event, such worries are overwhelmingly speculative, and based on ignorance and fear.  Both men and women do this.  And it's not healthy, productive or meaningful for them.

"Literally affecting" men, too.

And the Church is also "currently and actively teaching" that the Lord commanded and required animal sacrifice, which is "literally affecting real" people too.  That does not, however, mean that this effect is not arising almost entirely from ignorance, speculation and fear.

Splitting hairs.  

A man may, based on speculation, ignorance and fear, indulge in fretting over polygamy in the hereafter.  Women can do this also.  Neither should.

I'm sure a sufficiently agitated animal rights activist, reacting out of speculation and fear and ignorance, could say "Yes."

"Oh, I just cannot worship a God who required animal sacrifice.  That's evil, and any being who commanded it would be evil too.  I could never live in heaven with such a horrible being."

Of course, that person would be wrong to let fear and speculation and ignorance hold so much sway over himself.

Not quite.  The angst under discussion is arising now.   The ignorance and speculation and fear fueling that angst is arising now.  People are making decisions based on that angst now.

It certainly does for some.  Those who are willing to set aside their ignorance and fear and speculation, and to study the scriptures, and to exercise faith, will likely not end up tying themselves into emotional knots over such things.

Conversely, we can really help people who are bound and determined to stew in anxiety borne of ignorance, speculation and fear. 

And encouraging such people to continue in that course of action, and ratifying and affirmating fears that are borne of ignorance and speculation, will not help them either.

I can have empathy with someone struggling with fear without joining them in it.  I occasionally have clients who "really struggle" with hypotheticals, with 'what if" scenarios they formulate.  With most of them I can get them through these fears, but some become paralyzed.  It's mostly the fear, I think.  Fear of things they don't know much about.  Fear of things that in their speculations and imagination have or will become the-sky-is-falling-esque calamities.

I think it can be helpful to point that out.  The Restored Gospel is based on faith, not fear.  On trust in God, not anxiety about a parade of fabricated "what if" horribles.  

When that happens, we don't do ourselves any favors by refusing to trust Him about such things, and when we instead insist on clinging to fears borne of speculation and ignorance.

Yes.  But he also wants us to obey Him.

And it's not like He hasn't given us answers to such things:

• "Fear not to do good, my sons, for whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap; therefore, if ye sow good ye shall also reap good for your reward.  Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail.  Behold, I do not condemn you; go your ways and sin no more; perform with soberness the work which I have commanded you.  Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.  Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen."  (D&C 6:33-37.)
• "But now I tell it unto you, and ye are blessed, not because of your iniquity, neither your hearts of unbelief; for verily some of you are guilty before me, but I will be merciful unto your weakness.  Therefore, be ye strong from henceforth; fear not, for the kingdom is yours."  (D&C 38:15.)
• "Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things — Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof — Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.  And all they who suffer persecution for my name, and endure in faith, though they are called to lay down their lives for my sake yet shall they partake of all this glory.  Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full."  (D&C 101:32-36.)
• "Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever."  (D&C 122:9.)
• "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."  (Mosiah 4:9.)
• "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  (1 Cor. 2:9.)

We have all sorts of reason for optimism and joy at what we will experience in the hereafter.  I understand that some people are instead choosing to steep themselves in fear, and that is unfortunate.  But I don't think we do them much of a favor by validating such things.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for your thoughts.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You mentioned our opinions, but sometimes my opinions go too far. 

If I have an unsubstantiated opinion that disparages the reputation and character of another person, I will be quite circumspect in sharing it publicly.  

More to the point, I would hope to re-visit my negative opinion if it is unsubstantiated, as it may stem from ignorance, lack of charity, even prejudice.

This extends to people who are deceased.  If I were a descendant of Joseph Smith, I would probably not let your libelous characterization of him go unchallenged.  As it is, I feel a debt of gratitude to and kinship with him, such that I am willing to defend his character and reputation against baseless calumnies.

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment."  (Matthew 12:36.) 

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."  (Mormon 9:31.)

Thanks,

-Smac