New Book on Polygamy

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

the most part seems to be the scriptures really don't have any errors in them and prophets rarely make mistakes. 

Hang around more. I would say the majority of posters do not believe that. I am trying to think of one frequent poster that does actually. 

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

My gut tells me it would destroy the Church if it was brought back before the millennium.

It doesn’t even make sense long term to be required for exaltation because that would be at minimum twice as many women in the exaltation section of the CK as men. And if glory is tied to number of wives in any significant way, that means a lot higher than just twice as many. Unless the bar for exaltation is a lot lower for women (maybe we are asked “willing to churn out children for the next eternity?” and if we say “I think so, maybe?” we pass), just very unlikely in my view.

A test of obedience or a form of teaching some principle for a small group of people trying to live gospel in a particular place and time…I can see that when I look at some of the commandments Israel was given (small nation over a limited period of time).

Edited August 2, 2021 by Calm

[Stargazer]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Hang around more. I would say the majority of posters do not believe that. I am trying to think of one frequent poster that does actually. 

Ahab?

[Calm]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Ahab?

But Ahab had his own unique interpretations, so he may claim he does (I can’t remember if he does, though he claims iirc he always understands what God is telling him iirc), but if he doesn’t agree with others, he will argue against their interpretation. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I think that some of the brethren who practiced it might have gotten it pretty close to right. And some of them completely screwed it up. 

I have no idea what to do with it, either.

It’s good that God will be our judge. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, kimpearson said:

I will ask another question since no one really has anything to offer the sisters except that is just how it is.  Accept it and don't complain.  I don't want to argue.  I was just curious as to the mindset of this group which for the most part seems to be the scriptures really don't have any errors in them and prophets rarely make mistakes.  Polygamy is and eternal truth.  Fine. 

This is another thought that I am wondering if anyone is willing to discuss.  If polygamy is an eternal law, why doesn't the Church bring it back into the practice of living polygamy and why doesn't the Church teach that polygamy could be practiced again sometime in the future.  The practice of polygamy is currently considered grounds for losing membership in the Church.  Do you think it will come back into practice either in the telestial existence of the earth or during the millennium?  My gut tells me it would destroy the Church if it was brought back before the millennium.

Thanks for the discussion so far.  I always like to try to understand how other think and why they might think that way.

Quote

Jacob 2:27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

I believe this is the key to understanding the issue. Whatever God commands, we endeavor to obey, but because we are human, the efforts we make fall short of perfection. The question is, did God command it? If Joseph, Brigham, Heber, Parley, et al., were wrong, they will be judged accordingly. 

Now we see through a dark glass. Faults and offenses we have given and received will be frankly forgiven when we confess that Jesus is the Christ. Then we will see through the glass clearly. In the end, all will be set right through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If those brethren were right then all pain, hardship, trials, loneliness, and sorrow will be covered by the joy at having sacrificed and obeyed perhaps the most difficult difficult commandment given to a group of Saints.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

On 7/30/2021 at 12:01 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

If it’s the Association hit you’re talking about, bro, that’s “Windy,” not “Wendy.”

The Beach Boys tune is the only one I know about that’s titled “Wendy.”

 

On 7/30/2021 at 1:06 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Windy is the one with stormy eyes that flash at the sound of lies and with wings to fly above the clouds. 
 

Wendy is the one who broke her boyfriend’s heart when he thought they had their love down pat. 

 

22 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, Pat had nothing to do with it. Must have been one of those gender things

“Down pat” means Learned, mastered, or understood perfectly, to the point of requiring little or no focus to do, recall, or accomplish.

Is English your second language? (Just kidding.)

Added later: Apparently, you don’t have common English idioms down pat (just kidding again). 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I submit that it is certain sexist interpretations and teachings of polygamy that causes harm to some women, and not the doctrine as it comes from God, uninterpreted by fallible (but good) males.

All we have to work with are fallible male interpretations of course, and that’s why the topic can be so difficult to discuss.  

Where polygamy is concerned, all the revelations are an addition to men and a subtraction for women.  When the person getting the revelation on something always comes out ahead and always gets the bigger and better blessing, that’s a red flag to me that some sexism is in play.

I think it’s weird it’s not a red flag for others, considering how easily the natural man rules us and how fallible we all our.

It should be a big red flag.  Carry it a bit further and you may conclude that it was not a revelation from God at all but was produce by the mind of the man claiming revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

On that view there IS no "actual truth", that it is possible to know because it is impossible to differentiate it from our perceptions.

(Except by the spirit)

There are at least 6 layers of ambiguity, 3 for the sender and the same 3 for the receiver-

Sender:  1- perceiving "correctly" (color blindness, etc.) 2- interpreting correctly ( mirages, etc.) 3- translating into ambiguous symbols ( picking the right words) and then 3 for the Receiver: 1- perceiving the message correctly,(deafness) 2- interpreting it as intended by the sender 3- putting it into words correctly for the "audience.

It all is exactly like the game "telephone". Good luck!  And we expect "truth" to get through?

Better to just get your own revelations and go by your "own truth"

I believe we corrupt the concept of truth when we personalize it á la Oprah Winfrey with phrases such as “own truth,” “my truth,” “your truth,” etc. Truth, by definition, is not relative. There is truth and there is personal opinion. The latter is malleable; the former is not. 

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

es. For example,

Quote

For remember, brethren, that only those who enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage in the temple for time and eternity, only those will have the exaltation in the celestial kingdom. That is what the Lord tells us. (Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Oct. 1973, 120

Are you sure President Lee was referring to plural marriage?  I don't think most members believe that plural marriage is required for exaltation today nor do I believe this it taught.

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not saying anything. I don't know how those will fall out. I do know that God knows better than I, and I am willing to let Him sort it out. Because He will get it right. The paths we are walking in regards to all this are a bit murky, but we are doing the best we can. That's all we can do.

Besides, how many temple sealings are in vain anyway, because either or neither of the parties will be counted worthy to be exalted? If the Spirit does not ratify a sealing, it means nothing. My father was not a member of the church, and was not interested in learning about it. He told me not to have him baptized after he died. I did it anyway. I did his endowment, too, and stood proxy for him as he was sealed to my mother (who died when I was 7). I made sure that he was sealed to his parents, that they were baptized and sealed to each other, and then down both lines of ancestry. In most of those cases I stood in for my male ancestor (and deceased cousins and uncles). How much of that work was in vain? I have no idea, but the scriptures admonished me to do it, and my patriarchal blessing made particular emphasis about it. So it got done. I'm one of those people who doesn't really have a lot of temple work left to do, except for a couple of lines where there is just no information available. So far. 

I'm of the feeling that most all of my ancestors will accept the Gospel in the spirit world. Who among them would want to suffer for their own sins, after all -- and I'm assuming that they will be well-taught over there. But will they all be worthy of exaltation? Probably not, but that's not for me to judge. It's my task to see that the proxy work is done, all of it, and let Father deal with the cleanup at the end.

I find this to be one of the most interesting posts I have ever read in almost four years on this forum. I appreciate your candor in posting it. You seem to take some assurance in the fact that The Father and I assume Christ, will "deal with the cleanup at the end." If you didn't do any of this proxy work, wouldn't Christ and the Father work it out with the individual person anyway with absolute justice and mercy? In LDS eschatology, don't Heavenly Father and Christ have agency at the judgment? Does your proxy work or the lack of it restrict their choices or decisions for any one individual person? Certainly if an LDS priesthood holder has authority, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have authority to make decisions, no? Since, in your belief system they are the ultimate fount or source of your authority, keys, etc., doesn't that imply that they have ultimate agency over that authority?

One of us might believe in a wideness in God's mercy, while the other believes in a narrowness in God's mercy. That is fine, but does God not have absolute discretion over His mercy and judgment? Even in His human life here on earth in his non-glorified pre-resurrection existence, Christ dispensed mercy and judgment on folks as he saw fit, did He not? Will he not do that at the final judgment?

[theplains]

On 7/29/2021 at 8:45 PM, JLHPROF said:

Apparently people don't realize that just because they're uncomfortable or don't like the subject doesn't mean the spirit left. 🙄

 

I would agree with you.  Polygamy is still a God-ordained principle according to the FLDS.  In some
regards, they view the main LDS group as apostatizing when the latter group believed they received
a revelation to stop it.

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks.  I really would lke to carry this forward, but I won't

Please feel free to carry it forward. If my responses don't satisfy or satisfice you, just please don't get frustrated with me. I am doing my best to be a participant here without being offensive. Someone in our ward once shared with me that I am a source of confusion for folks. I don't fit into a box that can be checked. I am neither Critic to be dismissed or Investigator to be embraced in the hope of conversion (note capitals).

You all certainly criticize each other all the time, sometimes quite stingingly (I am pretty sure that isn't a word). Of course, you are welcome to criticize me as well, that might make me one of the gang. That I can take. What is hard on and for me is for you (singularly and collectively) to get frustrated with me because I continue to ask questions and seek clarification if and when I don't understand. There is much in faith, theology, and Truth (note the capital again) that I don't understand, especially when certain constructs are so new to me. Sometimes I think there is a latent construct in some of your minds that I really am a subtle and sneaky form of a critic, therefore not to be completely trusted as having a good intent. I have even examined that thought myself. I truly believe I am not. I am however, one with very high needs to know and understand. That probably makes me a pain in the neck.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The argument that I made back then, and put forward again here, is that plural marriage (not polygamy) is required because the number of women who are worthy of exaltation will be larger than the number of men who are worthy. And I emphasize again that this is my opinion, or my deduction from the evidence, or feeling because of observation, not something I can give a CFR on. The only scripture I can call on as possible evidence for this is in the discussion about those who hold the priesthood in Doctrine and Covenants section 121, verses 34 - 44. This specifically concerns priesthood holders, or in other words, males. In particular part we read: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen." (verses 39 & 40). I'm not saying that women cannot exercise unrighteous dominion, because they obviously can and do. 

So what happens if there are more men than women? Will women take multiple husbands?

[Tacenda]

Just a little laugh, hope it's okay. 

[Bernard Gui]

33 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Are you sure President Lee was referring to plural marriage?  I don't think most members believe that plural marriage is required for exaltation today nor do I believe this it taught.

Sorry. I thought you were asking something else. I wasn’t equating Celestial marriage with plural marriage.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So what happens if there are more men than women? Will women take multiple husbands?

They become Lost Boys forever.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, as I said earlier, we baptize everyone, too, regardless of whether we know they'll accept it. Dotting i's and crossing t's, as we were instructed.

“Baptize everyone” raises the question, how deep does the Atonement go?

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, kimpearson said:

My gut tells me it would destroy the Church if it was brought back before the millennium.

Can you imagine an end-times scenario that would impel God to invoke Jacob 2?

Quote

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

[Bernard Gui]

48 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If you didn't do any of this proxy work, wouldn't Christ and the Father work it out with the individual person anyway with absolute justice and mercy?

One question at a time.🙂

Two things….
1. We believe this is the way the Father and the Son have worked it out.

2. We do this work because we believe God commanded us to do it. We believe every one of his children must receive the saving ordinances. This is justice. That it can be done vicariously is mercy. The considerable effort, time and resources we expend to do this is proof of our sincerity.

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, theplains said:

Quote

Apparently people don't realize that just because they're uncomfortable or don't like the subject doesn't mean the spirit left. 🙄

I would agree with you.  Polygamy is still a God-ordained principle according to the FLDS.  In some
regards, they view the main LDS group as apostatizing when the latter group believed they received
a revelation to stop it.

I don't see how that's relevant to my comment.
Yes the FLDS believe polygamy should still be lived.  The Church believe that commandment was withdrawn between 1890 and 1904.
That has little to do with this topic of member comfort with discussing polygamy.  If you'd like to open a discussion topic on Official Declaration 1 or Fundamentalism you can always do that.

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see how that's relevant to my comment.
Yes the FLDS believe polygamy should still be lived.  The Church believe that commandment was withdrawn between 1890 and 1904.
That has little to do with this topic of member comfort with discussing polygamy.  If you'd like to open a discussion topic on Official Declaration 1 or Fundamentalism you can always do that.

One has to wonder that if the state of Utah didn't need polygamy to be stopped in order to have statehood would the mainstream LDS still be living it.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree.  There is not a single example in all gospel precedence where the Lord directed this.  Even when women remarried it was limited to time only.  And in those rare polyandrous marriages there was only one eternal companion.

Whatever sealing exceptions may have been made administratively I remain unconvinced that God has or will accept polyandrous eternal marriage.  It seems beyond God's design.

What about Joseph Smith's polyandry?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I agree.  There is not a single example in all gospel precedence where the Lord directed this.  Even when women remarried it was limited to time only.  And in those rare polyandrous marriages there was only one eternal companion.

Whatever sealing exceptions may have been made administratively I remain unconvinced that God has or will accept polyandrous eternal marriage.  It seems beyond God's design.

What about Joseph Smith's polyandry?

Again, not one of those had multiple eternal companions.
Every one of Joseph's so-called polyandrous marriage he was the only "eternal companion".  Any other husband was not sealed by priesthood authority to the wife for eternity.  (There MIGHT have been one exception - I'd have to check the records again).

One thing that never seems to get realized when plural marriage is discussed is that in the views of the time priesthood marriages were the ones that counted.  Civil marriages were viewed as inferior.
Our changing perspective continues to equate temple marriage with civil marriage.  That was not the view of their day.

 

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Over time, I have learned to recognize the difference between emotional reaction and the spirit of the Lord. And you are absolutely correct that what your bishop was talking about was an emotional reaction, not the withdrawal of the spirit. But of course, the spirit departed from him (and clearly no-one else), but only because of his rejection of it. Amazing Grace is a beautiful and uplifting song, and I think its exclusion from the hymnbook is a mistake.  Well, that's beside the point.  I remember once when I was about to tell someone something that was very precious to me, regarding a strong spiritual experience I had once had, and just as I opened my mouth to start telling about it, I got a strong disapproving impression, as if the Lord were saying "Shut it!" And I stopped. I saw that if I had resisted that impression that I would definitely feel the withdrawal of the spirit. Just the premonition of it was bad enough. 

I hesitate to chime in on this, due to past experience with certain other commenters, but I feel I need to put something forward.

Exaltation is the ultimate goal that Father has for each and every one of us. But it is not singular -- it requires male and female together. Paul wrote: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (I Cor 11:11) That and DC 132 makes it abundantly clear that neither a single man nor a single woman can be exalted. Both sexes are required. Why? I have no idea. But it seems to be the case.

The problem, then, is this: if there are a billion of one sex and a billion and one of the other sex who are worthy of exaltation, then there is one worthy person who cannot be exalted. This would rob God and frustrate His purposes. In dealing with this question, someone once asserted to me that God would ensure that the numbers would be even. That God would make sure that among those worthy of exaltation, the ratio of men to women would be 1:1. The problem with this is that God cannot even guarantee that any particular one of us will ultimately be worthy of exaltation. If He had known absolutely who all would pass the test of mortality, then there would have been no point in sending us into mortality. Even God did not know which of us would succeed before He sent us. And God is not a respecter of persons, so He cannot take someone who is not worthy of exaltation and magically change him/her to make him/her worthy. So as to magically make the ration 1:1.

The argument that I made back then, and put forward again here, is that plural marriage (not polygamy) is required because the number of women who are worthy of exaltation will be larger than the number of men who are worthy. And I emphasize again that this is my opinion, or my deduction from the evidence, or feeling because of observation, not something I can give a CFR on. The only scripture I can call on as possible evidence for this is in the discussion about those who hold the priesthood in Doctrine and Covenants section 121, verses 34 - 44. This specifically concerns priesthood holders, or in other words, males. In particular part we read: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen." (verses 39 & 40). I'm not saying that women cannot exercise unrighteous dominion, because they obviously can and do. 

And as far as almost all men is concerned, the word men in this context is not a generalized reference to human being. Because the discussion involves priesthood holders, it is clearly a reference to males. It should be clear as day to anyone that there will be many priesthood holders called, but only a few will be chosen. And what is "chosen" in this context? If one reads further, to the last two verses in the section, one encounters some pretty powerful promises to those who are chosen:

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.
46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

This is a clear call-out to exaltation. 

Now, if few men will be exalted, and the number of women who will be worthy of it will exceed that number (which is my unprovable assertion), then plural marriage is required in order for God's purposes to be fulfilled. And as He Himself says in DC 3:1

The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught.

This should actually help us understand why He said that "any woman who refused to allow her husband to take another wife would be destroyed by the Lord."  By so refusing, such a wife is refusing another worthy woman the opportunity of exaltation, which she cannot have without an eternal husband. And this is cause for "destruction", or in other words, she loses her own exaltation because she denies to another woman the opportunity for it. 

I'm a man, and a priesthood holder. I'm sealed to exactly one woman. I'd love to keep it that way. But it appears that, in order for me to be worthy of exaltation in the eternity I will be required to be sealed to more women, even though I do not seek this, and would rather not. There may be those men who would otherwise be worthy of exaltation, but who refuse to accept more sealings, and they will lose their exaltation as well. For the same reason.

I know this bothers folks. But do they not understand that marriage in the eternity does not closely resemble marriage in mortality? A woman in mortality may be repelled by plural marriage because it means her husband is off giving attention to another woman, and leaving her all alone, and possibly not providing for her and her children with him. This is fearful, and it's natural, and it's a survival characteristic to be worried about it in mortality. Men and women in mortality are extremely limited beings. But in eternity we are not restricted to one thought at a time. Is God only able to listen to one prayer at a time? Can He only do one miracle at a time? Of course not! All His trillions and quadrillions of children on all the planets in His universe can be heard by Him, and all at the same time. By the same token, our exaltation gives us the same power that God has. If an eternal husband has a hundred eternal wives, he is always with each and every one of them; none of them are ever alone. This is why we call it plural marriage, and not "polygamy". An eternal husband is married a hundred times. He does not have a hundred wives. He has a hundred marriages, none of them takes precedence over any of the others, and there is no worry over abandonment. Nor will there be any jealousy -- which is a human mortal emotion, I should like to point out.

This subject gets all confused with sex. Eternal life and eternal marriage is not mortal life and mortal sex. That's all some people can think about, and it gets them all twitterpated. But eternity does not revolve around earthly sex. We need to get this out of our heads.

I sometimes try to get people to look at life in the eternity as something more than what they see in mortality. It's not easy, because it seems that most people cannot imagine eternal life to be anything better than living on a planet with no bad weather, where the food is always first rate and you never get fat, television is always entertaining, skiing is always available and the slopes are great, the internet connectivity is fantastic, and one never gets tired, stressed, injured, or sick. And the daily harp recitals are optional. But that is mortal thinking. Even those of us who qualify only for the Telestial Kingdom will find immortal lives of wonder and magic, filled with purpose and accomplishment. So if we are counted among those worthy of exaltation, our lives will not resemble earth life with slightly better conditions. And that includes our personal relationships.

Members of the church need to stop thinking like gentiles, and start thinking like saints.

What if there are more men worthy of exaltation than women though?  Then the entire polygamy puzzle falls apart.

I really appreciate you taking the time to write this all out and share your thoughts on it.  And as I said before, I don't personally struggle with the doctrine of polygamy.  But having the whole reason for polygamy be based on an unsupported opinion that women are more spiritual than men seems like really sandy ground to be standing on.  It could be true.  But it could just as easily be false.