Is A LDS Man Considered A Polygamist Once Sealed To More Than One Woman?

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Please provide one scripture that wholly shows God commanded polygamy. Besides the LDS scripture canon, just the Bible.  Since that is where Joseph read and assumed he needed to restore it, which doesn't make any sense, and Jesus tore through that baloney, IMO. Nevermind, just read over this and let me know if you agree or disagree. https://exponentii.org/blog/god-didt-command-polygamy-so-lets-stop-saying-that/

Commanded - maybe not.  Both permitted and participated in...

The Lord directly claims to have given plural wives

2 Samuel 12:7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; 8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

The Lord gives specific laws for living polygamy (but no ban)

Deut 21:15 ¶ If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: 16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

Exodus 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

And in the days of Christ polygamy was practiced and acceptable among the Jews.  It was the pagan Roman rule of Israel that tried to end it.  The Roman empire is why western civilization is basically monogamous.  Not Christianity.

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

So any first wife status talked about among early church members was a temporary condition of mortality rather than doctrine in your view? (I have just seen stuff in journals and some hearsay accounts.). Just curious about your opinion.  I figure when all are exalted there would be no need for such status because all partake of the oneness of God, so either it was a necessary evil (I call it evil because it tends to create a caste system) for mortality or just something picked up from the greater culture.

Yes, I think any such practice was just a choice of that family in an attempt to make it work.  Sarah and Hagar had societal inequality in their lives.  Plural wives in the early Church may not have been treated as equals in every family but I know of no doctrinal teaching.  It may have been a natural result of young girls marrying into families with first wives much older and motherly towards them.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Sara H said:

I appreciate your intelligent reply. The purpose of this discussion is to see if I can find someone who would claim that we don't know if he's a polygamist because we don't know whether his first wife has approved of the fact that he married and will soon be sealed to another woman.

There are all sorts of things about the future which we can only "claim" as a matter of faith and hope, and not as a statement of fact.

10 hours ago, Sara H said:

Is there a choice for the first wife if she wishes to take part in a sealing with another woman? 

AFAIK, there is no such ordinance.  A woman is sealed to a man in marriage, not to another woman.

That said, I do not believe the Lord would ratify a polygamous union without the freely-given consent of all those involved.  

I also believe that our perspective then will be far, far greater than our blinkered and finite perspective in this life.

10 hours ago, Sara H said:

Does Section 132 state that she does not have a choice in the matter?

Who is "she"?  Which verse(s) are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, Sara H said:

I had hoped the topic would change to the first wife's freedom of action rather than the husband having the ultimate decision. 

She has the same freedom as everyone else in a marriage.  Stay or leave.  Remain in her covenant or walk away from it.

What other freedom is there in a marriage? 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, I think any such practice was just a choice of that family in an attempt to make it work.  Sarah and Hagar had societal inequality in their lives.  Plural wives in the early Church may not have been treated as equals in every family but I know of no doctrinal teaching.  It may have been a natural result of young girls marrying into families with first wives much older and motherly towards them.

My guess is it as well made it more palatable for the first wife and to not fear she would be replaced by a new favorite wife (included in what was adopted to make it work)

Edited August 16, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, I think any such practice was just a choice of that family in an attempt to make it work.  Sarah and Hagar had societal inequality in their lives.  Plural wives in the early Church may not have been treated as equals in every family but I know of no doctrinal teaching.  It may have been a natural result of young girls marrying into families with first wives much older and motherly towards them.

I would also guess that sarah and hagar's rolls were largely determined by the laws and customs under which they lived . In Hammurabi's code, a barren wife could offer her servant to her husband as a means of producing a child.  But if she refused, then the husband could "legally" take a second wife.

Edited August 16, 2023 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

She has the same freedom as everyone else in a marriage.  Stay or leave.  Remain in her covenant or walk away from it.

What other freedom is there in a marriage? 

I would think the freedom to not have one party unilaterally redefine the terms of the relationship and switch it from monogamous to polygynous. In the poly community today trying to drag a partner that wants a monogamous relationship into a polyamorous one is a huge “no no”.

Of course in the 1800s ending a marriage was much more difficult and often very dangerous for the woman.

[The Nehor]

And if we look at the families of Abraham, Jacob, and David we learn that polygamy can work very well.

*reads their stories*

Hey….WAIT A MINUTE!

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I would think the freedom to not have one party unilaterally redefine the terms of the relationship and switch it from monogamous to polygynous. In the poly community today trying to drag a partner that wants a monogamous relationship into a polyamorous one is a huge “no no”.

Of course in the 1800s ending a marriage was much more difficult and often very dangerous for the woman.

That would be the ideal, but redefining relationships happens all the time with other aspects of a marriage, including unilaterally deciding on leaving the marriage or just having affairs, refusing to have children or becomes pregnant contrary to the agreed upon conditions of their marriage or even intentionally sabotages birth control, one partner becomes more or less religious and starts requiring or refusing to do things based on their new beliefs, a partner decides they will choose to follow a different attraction than their partner is, or decides to redefine their own gender which alters the relationship.

We do not have the freedom to control the relationship because we cannot control how the other in the marriage will experience life nor the choices they make…unless one is abusive. 

[Sara H]

20 hours ago, webbles said:

If you had hoped that the discussion would go one way, why don't you come out and say so from the beginning.  This is what bothers me about your topics so far.  If you want to discuss whether the first wife has a choice in the matter, why not start it that way instead of hoping that someone will go that way?

I think it would be best if you focused on yourself while I concentrated on myself. I have the ability to hope and desire for what I want. I had anticipated that the thread would take many different turns as most do; do you think it would be helpful for me to begin by outlining all of my wishes and hopes for a particular thread at the outset, so that posters such as yourself are satisfied and don't have a reason to doubt whether or not I am being sincere? Or is it preferable to just keep things straightforward and allow the conversation to develop naturally? 

[Sara H]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

For herself, yes.  I believe she has the free will to remove herself from her sealing with her husband (with the new wife), if she doesn't want to be in a polygamist marriage.  I don't believe she can void her husband's sealing to the other woman though.

 

However, we do not know. Since we are looking at it from a mortal point of view, we do not have any insight into what takes place after a sealed woman has passed away and been elevated to the next level. We are aware of the limitations and constraints that polygamy imposes on women on this planet; nevertheless, how can we be sure that an exalted woman does not have the same amount of influence in the heavens as her husband? 

[Sara H]

18 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Sounds familiar

 

Seems to be the very definition of a controversial topic.  Which is just fine.  Don’t be hesitant to lead with what you actually want to discuss. 
 

 

Don't be scared of posters who think outside the box.

[Sara H]

17 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Not me! I don't believe polygamy came from God. It came from a man that isn't perfect, Joseph Smith.

I am currently conducting study into the reasons why so many men who begin religions end up claiming that they are obligated to practice polygamy or some form of "free love" because that is what God wants them to do. My husband and I are currently watching a documentary on Nxivm, and as it turns out, the leader of that group had sexual intercourse with more than a dozen different female members of the congregation. 

[Sara H]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

She has the same freedom as everyone else in a marriage.  Stay or leave.  Remain in her covenant or walk away from it.

What other freedom is there in a marriage? 

But what evidence do we have that she is without a choice in the matter? Do you mean to imply that the fact that she was the first wife, possibly giving birth to more than one child for them, providing for the family, tending to him and the children when they were sick, taking care of the house, keeping her covenants, and, most importantly, being a faithful partner has no bearing on her decision to want to participate in a polygamous relationship? It's possible that she might just forget about the marriage and move on, as you say she could, but what I'm trying to say is that there is a good probability in the heavens that a woman (first wife) who has been faithful to her husband, vows, and God might have more power than you're giving her credit for. 

[Meadowchik]

On 8/14/2023 at 2:00 PM, Amulek said:

Legally, no.

Spiritually, yes, but only if we assume the Mormons are right.

 

Seems he would be spiritually regardless, because that's the spiritual perspective he has adopted.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

But what evidence do we have that she is without a choice in the matter? Do you mean to imply that the fact that she was the first wife, possibly giving birth to more than one child for them, providing for the family, tending to him and the children when they were sick, taking care of the house, keeping her covenants, and, most importantly, being a faithful partner has no bearing on her decision to want to participate in a polygamous relationship? It's possible that she might just forget about the marriage and move on, as you say she could, but what I'm trying to say is that there is a good probability in the heavens that a woman (first wife) who has been faithful to her husband, vows, and God might have more power than you're giving her credit for. 

No, it's not possible.  God is no respecter of persons.  Why does wife number one hold any authority over the marriage of wife number two?

That's not a thing.  She has zero right to end another woman's marriage.  God doesn't love his daughters who are first wives more than his daughters who are second wives.

Can you honestly see President Nelson and his wife Wendy arriving in the spirit world and his wife Dantzel waiting there telling Wendy, sorry, your marriage to him is over, your sealing won't be honored?  Again that's not a thing.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Sara H said:

However, we do not know. Since we are looking at it from a mortal point of view, we do not have any insight into what takes place after a sealed woman has passed away and been elevated to the next level. We are aware of the limitations and constraints that polygamy imposes on women on this planet; nevertheless, how can we be sure that an exalted woman does not have the same amount of influence in the heavens as her husband? 

You are still looking at this completely wrong.  It's not exalted husband, exalted wife, other women.

All the wives would be exalted and equal.  First holds no authority, power, or primacy over second and third.  Using your logic why couldn't second exalted wife tell first exalted wife that she had to leave?  Or second and third wives vote out first 2 to 1?

Because that's not how it works.  No wife holds any authority over another.  They are equal in standing.

Edited August 16, 2023 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Of course in the 1800s ending a marriage was much more difficult and often very dangerous for the woman.

You might want to check your early Church history on divorce in polygamy.

Edited August 16, 2023 by JLHPROF

[Sara H]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are still looking at this completely wrong.  It's not exalted husband, exalted wife, other women.

All the wives would be exalted and equal.  First holds no authority, power, or primacy over second and third.  Using your logic why couldn't second exalted wife tell first exalted wife that she had to leave?  Or second and third wives vote out first 2 to 1?

Because that's not how it works.  No wife holds any authority over another.  They are equal in standing.

I get how you see this, but if you are right and the first wife is completely equal in authority, power, and primacy to all of the other wives, then doesn't the idea that there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother turn into the idea that there is a Heavenly Father who has multiple wives instead? I understand how you see this, but if you are right, then I don't know what to say. Are you saying that our faith tells me that I should extend my perspective to perceive a plurality of Heavenly Mothers who are co equal with one another? All of my life, whenever I have thought of God and his wife, I have pictured nothing more than one man and one lady in my mind's eye.

[Sara H]

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Can you honestly see President Nelson and his wife Wendy arriving in the spirit world and his wife Dantzel waiting there telling Wendy, sorry, your marriage to him is over, your sealing won't be honored? 

Yes, in all honesty, I can picture the events described in that scenario taking place. Do we actually have a complete understanding of polygamy? Consider the case of Joseph, who married 11 women who were already married to other men at the time of their union. That is beyond my comprehension! Why did the lord command Sara to give  Abraham a wife? Why was it necessary for Abraham to wait for the first wife's permission before he could marry Hagar? 

[MustardSeed]

2 hours ago, Sara H said:

Don't be scared of posters who think outside the box.

I didn’t know that’s what you were going for.  It’s hard to tell what you want . But ok! 

[MustardSeed]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

All the wives would be exalted and equal.  First holds no authority, power, or primacy over second and third.

Polite CFR? 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

As Cal pointed out, this doctrine has always been here.  Members and leaders just learn more about how it applies and how to teach it in more accurate ways.  It's a doctrinal shift because how we relate to the doctrine shifts.  But the doctrine has always been there. 

Getting rid of cultural interpretations of doctrine is, in my opinion, still incredibly unique in a religion.  I'd rather do that than stubbornly cling to stuff that's wrong in a belief that it's somehow better optics.

 

So I guess prophets and apostles get a lot wrong and /or miss a lot.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Sara H said:

I get how you see this, but if you are right and the first wife is completely equal in authority, power, and primacy to all of the other wives, then doesn't the idea that there is a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother turn into the idea that there is a Heavenly Father who has multiple wives instead? I understand how you see this, but if you are right, then I don't know what to say. Are you saying that our faith tells me that I should extend my perspective to perceive a plurality of Heavenly Mothers who are co equal with one another? All of my life, whenever I have thought of God and his wife, I have pictured nothing more than one man and one lady in my mind's eye.

You think Heavenly Father has one wife?

"Knowest thou not that eternities ago thy spirit, pure and holy, dwelt in thy Heavenly Father’s bosom, and in His presence, and with thy mother, one of the queens of heaven, surrounded by thy brother and sister spirits in the spirit world, among the Gods?" President John Taylor

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, Sara H said:

Yes, in all honesty, I can picture the events described in that scenario taking place. Do we actually have a complete understanding of polygamy? Consider the case of Joseph, who married 11 women who were already married to other men at the time of their union. That is beyond my comprehension! Why did the lord command Sara to give  Abraham a wife? Why was it necessary for Abraham to wait for the first wife's permission before he could marry Hagar? 

Actually it was the first wife's idea.  Sarah told him to marry Hagar.