New Book on Polygamy

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Those kinds of talks, where the man is the be-all, end-all and women are treated as possessions, are really really hard for a lot of women in the church. 

That is probably why we don’t do them anymore.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I can understand why that would be.  And that's all I'll say about it.  🤐😉

Yes, believing that God views you as a possession that exists only to elevate and provide blessings for men is not a great way to have a good relationship with your Father in Heaven. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is probably why we don’t do them anymore.

Yes.  It's provided comfort instead of explanation in those situations.  We've removed the related ordinance and covenant.

We'd rather say "God will work it all out and everyone will be happy" than accept any prophetic statement that is discomforting.

Not sure what that says about us, that we prefer comfortable over explanation.  Something about hemlock knots I'm sure.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, believing that God views you as a possession that exists only to elevate and provide blessings for men is not a great way to have a good relationship with your Father in Heaven. 

It's funny, because that's exactly how God's glory is described concerning all of us.  Good enough for God, not for mortals.  Goes back to my thread on separation.  We don't want to see ourselves the same as God.

Edited July 31, 2021 by JLHPROF

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  It's provided comfort instead of explanation in those situations.  We've removed the related ordinance and covenant.

We'd rather say "God will work it all out and everyone will be happy" than accept any prophetic statement that is discomforting.

Not sure what that says about us, that we prefer comfortable over explanation.  Something about hemlock knots I'm sure.

There would actually be a way to teach the exact same doctrine without the sexism.

Am I crazy or could it be done?

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There would actually be a way to teach the exact same doctrine without the sexism.

Am I crazy or could it be done?

Not crazy at all.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I’m sure that’s why he told her no. I’m holding out hope it makes it into the next one. 

I kind of wish it doesn’t as I hear it everywhere already (or used to I should say, not so much lately).  And way too often on bagpipes (heard it at my son’s high school and weirdly when attending graveside services, there is someone practicing, so there must be a few bagpipers in Utah).

[kimpearson]

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

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

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

That's fine to believe but historical evidence doesn't support that view.  D&C 132 is not a permissive revelation, nor is there any historical record that Joseph requested to live it.  Quite the opposite.  All evidence doesn't support your theory.

[mgy401]

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

So, you would rather people make something up (and something that slanders Joseph Smith and flies in the face of what the women he actually proposed to had to say about it, to boot?)

For all those women you mention whose “shelves” finally broke—how many of them heard you assert that Joseph Smith was just a manipulative horndog?

[kimpearson]

JLHPROF,  good job proving my point.  I asked a question and you didn't respond.  Just attacked my "opinion" which if very different than stating my belief as fact.  Be brave and explain how you would explain polygamy to a sister troubled by it.

[kimpearson]

mgy401,  Why are you twisting my question as if I were asking for some malicious explanation?  Be brave, show some thought and give me your faith affirming ideas about polygamy.  I wasn't asking for doctrine as we have no real doctrine or revelation explaining clearly the place of polygamy in the eternities.

[Metis_LDS]

1 hour ago, 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

Well I will do my best.  Brigham Young preached an interesting concept where he said when men do polygamy properly the man should never divorce a wife.  It was however acceptable if a wife started the divorce.   I can only guess that God cannot control how many women are created in the premortal life and or the issue is not as many men will be in the Celestial Kingdom.  If and it is a big IF then polygamy is a heavenly solution (in the afterlife) for the ratio of men to women.   My experiences with God assures me that no women or men will be forced into this type of marriage in the after life.  I do not understand your point about  ""women serving on councils and a revamping of the temple ceremony to equalize women"" as polygamy in Heaven does not make women sub servants.  If the only way for the majority of women in the afterlife to have a husband and Spirit children in the next life is for one man to have many wives then let those women chose for themselves.  

Edited August 1, 2021 by Metis_LDS
spelling

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's funny, because that's exactly how God's glory is described concerning all of us.  Good enough for God, not for mortals.  Goes back to my thread on separation.  We don't want to see ourselves the same as God.

Can you clarify?  How is It like God’s glory?  I’m not following you. 

[kimpearson]

JLHPROF,  Just wanted to check some facts I remembered.  Section 132 is a very unusual revelation.  It wasn't included in the D&C until 1876.  It wasn't announced to the general church population until 1852.  Joseph Smith never had a chance to review and revise what his scribes wrote down like he did many of his other revelations.  The wording of section 132 is entirely unlike any other revelation in the D&C or any other book of scriptures.  It's a hard read and seems to jump around.  Several of the editors of the Joseph Smith papers have discussed the ways section 132 is unusual.  

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, this is not the way we LDS usually talk about grace.

”Was Grace that taught my heart to fear
And Grace, my fears relieved
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.”

I’m not aware of any LDS hymn that is popular in other denominations. Why not use the talents and efforts of LDS composers and poets?

A couple of weeks ago we sang a great hymn by Fanny Crosby in our sacrament service. It was of course in the hymnal. When she did most of her writing (many hymns) she was Methodist Episcopal from New York.

[kimpearson]

The old "there are more men in the celestial kingdom than women" is disproved by our own doctrine.  We believe children who die before the age of 8 go to the celestial kingdom.   Somewhere between 60 and 90 billion people have been born on this earth per the experts.  30% to 50% of those people likely died before the age of 8.  That's 18 to 45 billion people.  I am pretty sure the ratio of men to women in that group is pretty equal.  5 to 7 million children die before the age of 5 each year according to the UN now days.  I am pretty sure the ratio of boys and girls is fairly equal.  The members of the modern and ancient church are a mere tiny drop in that billions and billions of people in the celestial kingdom.  There will be no problem of the ratio between men and women unless you know something I don't.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

We have a number of hymns that are common to other sects.

I’m talking about hymns with text and music by members of the Church. Do you know of any?

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

JLHPROF,  Just wanted to check some facts I remembered.  Section 132 is a very unusual revelation.  It wasn't included in the D&C until 1876.  It wasn't announced to the general church population until 1852.  Joseph Smith never had a chance to review and revise what his scribes wrote down like he did many of his other revelations.  The wording of section 132 is entirely unlike any other revelation in the D&C or any other book of scriptures.  It's a hard read and seems to jump around.  Several of the editors of the Joseph Smith papers have discussed the ways section 132 is unusual.  

Correct on all counts.  From its receipt until announcement in 1852(?) it was not considered a revelation to the entire Church and it wasn't binding by common consent law until made canon.  It was a revelation to a specific group of Church members at first.

It was specifically limited to the membership of the Holy Order/Quorum of the Anointed.  It was part of Joseph's promise to make a kingdom of priests.  It related to temple ordinances.

Studying the timeline shows that the restoration of temple ordinances and sealing like polygamy happened not under Church administrative oversight but under the direction of a separate council of anointed leadership.  There were members with no Church authority among these and high ranking Church leaders who weren't consulted.

Polygamy as a commandment never belonged to the general Church.  That's why Pres. Woodruff stopped it in the Church in 1890 but allowed Apostles to continue practicing and performing plural marriages outside Church directives nearly all the way to the 1920s.

[Bernard Gui]

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

A couple of weeks ago we sang a great hymn by Fanny Crosby in our sacrament service. It was of course in the hymnal. When she did most of her writing (many hymns) she was Methodist Episcopal from New York.

I’m not a fan of the “militant hymns.” Behold a Royal Army; We Are Marching on to Glory; We Are All Enlisted; Onward Christian Soldiers; Up Awake, Ye Defenders of Zion; Hope of Israel; etc. 

[Bernard Gui]

31 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

The old "there are more men in the celestial kingdom than women" is disproved by our own doctrine.  We believe children who die before the age of 8 go to the celestial kingdom.   Somewhere between 60 and 90 billion people have been born on this earth per the experts.  30% to 50% of those people likely died before the age of 8.  That's 18 to 45 billion people.  I am pretty sure the ratio of men to women in that group is pretty equal.  5 to 7 million children die before the age of 5 each year according to the UN now days.  I am pretty sure the ratio of boys and girls is fairly equal.  The members of the modern and ancient church are a mere tiny drop in that billions and billions of people in the celestial kingdom.  There will be no problem of the ratio between men and women unless you know something I don't.

Celestial marriage is not a requirement to enter the celestial kingdom. It is required for exaltation.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Can you clarify?  How is It like God’s glory?  I’m not following you. 

McConkie -"Eternal progression consists of living the kind of life God lives and of increasing in kingdoms and dominions everlastingly. "

Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Off the top of my head but I could search for others.  The Church has taught that God's glory increases according to the exaltation of his children, ie his Kingdom size.

But for some reason we loathe any idea that our exaltation and kingdom will be the same thing.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

JLHPROF,  good job proving my point.  I asked a question and you didn't respond.  Just attacked my "opinion" which if very different than stating my belief as fact.  Be brave and explain how you would explain polygamy to a sister troubled by it.

Thanks for the input, I'll gladly accept an answer to this predicament. But there is none, because Joseph Smith being a prophet of God and who spoke in His name, will cause your question to be shushed to the side. 

When I first learned that JS had wives other than Emma, didn't even know after being a member most of my life, and going down the rabbit hole, I now disbelieve the church is what it claims. There isn't one faith promoting answer, IMO. Women treated like chattel is not a faith promoting story. 

Thanks for trying though, seriously. And you did a good job putting it in perspective, but sadly you won't get the answer you want. 

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, kimpearson said:

JLHPROF,  good job proving my point.  I asked a question and you didn't respond.  Just attacked my "opinion" which if very different than stating my belief as fact.  Be brave and explain how you would explain polygamy to a sister troubled by it.

I chose not to address this part of your post and instead focus on historical facts, in this case your incorrect description of Joseph's requests on polygamy. 

We've been told many times in this board we don't get an opinion on women's issues or perspectives so I won't address that question.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for the input, I'll gladly accept an answer to this predicament. But there is none, because Joseph Smith being a prophet of God and who spoke in His name, will cause your question to be shushed to the side. 

When I first learned that JS had wives other than Emma, didn't even know after being a member most of my life, and going down the rabbit hole, I now disbelieve the church is what it claims. There isn't one faith promoting answer, IMO. Women treated like chattel is not a faith promoting story. 

Tacenda, that's because her question (and yours) is one of feelings, not one of history or doctrine?  What exactly would anyone say that would make you feel better?

I'll happily address doctrinal and historical questions.  But I'm not going to tell you or Kimpearson how to handle your feelings.  Nor should I.

Edited August 1, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Quote

 

Therewill be no problem of the ratio between men and women unless you know something I don't.

I use this same observation, so I figure I might as well point out that destined for the CK doesn’t automatically mean destined for exaltation.
 

But I also find it ridiculous to believe that women are more spiritually righteous than men (even if in Western religion females are more prone in our culture to the social behaviours of religion, there are other cultures where males are more involved and social behaviours such as attending church and not having affairs doesn’t necessarily translate to righteous behaviour of charity, faith, hope and godly attributes…after all, the two best examples we know of are male), so even if we are talking about only a subset of the CK, there is no inherent reason I can see why it would naturally be more women.  There is nothing in our doctrine to suggest this either.   Therefore there is no reason to assume more women will be worthy for exaltation than men. 

Added:  The reasoning started with the end:  plural marriage requires more women to be exalted so men can have more than one wife.  Having more women in heaven can only be fair if these women deserve to be there, so women therefore must be more spiritually advanced than men.  

In scripture, women weren’t even allowed to be witnesses, so the prophets in the Bible weren’t apparently inspired to inform all those men that maybe they should be listening to their wives for spiritual council. They certainly didn’t act as if women were the more spiritually advanced.  And while Joseph approached women more as equals in his description of the RS, how long did it take for the oh so spiritually wise women to be included in councils on a regular basis at all levels?  Why would a church meant to bring the world to God not bother to include the most spiritually powerful group in the Church in important councils?  Women being more spiritual is an excuse to justify the imbalance, to help people to feel warm and fuzzy about men having multiple wives.  It is not taken seriously in anything else or the women would be at least a huge part of the upper levels decision makers in the Church  

My personal POV based on behaviour of policy as time goes on (sealings for men and women are becoming treated more the same) as well as observation of men and women in love and research on personal attachment and attraction is that if there are any who have multiple marriages in heaven, it will be allowed for both sexes as women (just like men) can love deeply multiple partners and if the reasoning for plural marriage is men shouldn’t be forced to give up someone they love, then there is no reason that women would need to because we are talking about advanced beings who wouldn’t make relationships messy or wonder who the father was if spiritual creation were anything like earthly creation (which is a stretch if there is truly no blood in our bodies).  

Same reasoning goes for increased glory when one sees it as the family, adoption (first husband who dies and then their wife remarries and her children allegedly become his…that is not a blood relationship), and other aspects. Why wouldn’t women have the ability to increase their kingdoms by having more husbands and thus more dominions to be rulers over with them if one assumes a dominion is ruled by a married couple. 
 

We are also going to all be adults. Why would anyone of us be ruled over by someone who just happened to be born first?  Why would eternal dominion function as father to child and not based on most intelligent (as used in scripture)?  Couldn’t the child actually be an ‘older’ more advanced spirit in the preexistence who was needed for a particular time and place and his parents were mediocre spirits and not that great in mortality ?  It doesn’t make sense to me, for example, for Abraham’s father if he repents fully and achieves exaltation to be placed as ruler over Abraham. 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Calm