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

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And then Sarah told Abraham to boot Hagar and her son out and they nearly died of exposure.

I doubt Hagar would believe the whole "all wives are equal" thing at that point.

Some theories follow that Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was a consequence of his treatment of Hagar and Ishmael.

But his obedience and humility saved Isaac's life.

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, Sara H said:

Where I'm starting to get confused is that the way you're describing eternity is pretty much exactly how many of the so-called polygamous sects of "Mormonism" teach about eternity. I haven't seen any distinction between your view of heaven and theirs, but I must admit that I know very little about how they view heaven other than what I've heard third person or in documentaries.

I agree with the teachings restored through Joseph, Brigham, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff etc.

Sometimes that makes my beliefs align with fundamentalists, sometimes with current Church teachings.  I happen to believe the revelations they received because of the position they held and the authority of their office.

I don't agree with every statement of every prophet and I reject the idea of contradictory revelation.

Quote

If I understand what you are saying, we may have given up on polygamy while we were on earth to protect the name and standing of the church while we were on earth because we were being pressured by the government, but once we are beyond our mortal experience and in the heavens, polygamy will be the name of the game and practicd much like the other LDS sects also described. 

I believe in D&C 132 and other actual revelations given to the Presidents of the Church on the subject (regardless of canonization).  So yes, I believe polygamy is an eternal principle withdrawn by the Lord because of agency, circumstances, and weakness. Much as in the days of Moses.   It's not authorized by God now.  It will be again and polygamists will have their eternal families.

Quote

This indicates that the other LDS factions are just as legitimate as we are and that they may also be practicing the priesthood in the right way. Unless I'm overlooking anything obvious here. 

Priesthood authority and sealing keys are of the utmost importance.  Fundamentalist groups have no authority.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I thought Reuben lost the birthright because he slept with one of Jacob's other wives?  Or I'm I getting that confused with a different story?

That happened but the law in Deuteronomy doesn’t have such an exception. Even still that would give Simeon the birthright. Unless you argue that Simeon and Levi’s circumcision murder plot disqualified them in which case Judah should get it. Unless the plot to sell Joseph applies in which case okay, now it is Joseph’s. I can accept a divine exception. It is almost like Deuteronomy was written to say not to act like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who ALL gave the birthright to the non-firstborn.

There is also a reading of the story of Reuben where it was not adultery. That reading goes like this: When Rachel was alive Jacob kept her in his tent. When she died it was Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaiden, who took Rachel’s place. This is sometimes attributed to Bilhah’s beauty or to Jacob seeing her as the closest thing to his lost love (personal note: that is yucky!). Reuben was upset since his mother (Leah) was a primary wife and saw this as a slight so he overthrew Bilhah’s bed and had Leah moved in. This was also seen as a great slight that may have been the reason Jacob took the birthright away.

Reuben is in many ways the most sympathetic of the oldest 10 brothers as he is the one who convinced the others not to kill Joseph and planned to rescue him. He gets a bad rap. Then again I am also sympathetic to Simeon and Levi murdering the guy who raped their sister and murdering those who condoned it. Then you have the Judah and Tamar story and…..yeah, if these are the chosen people it gives me hope that I might qualify somehow.

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Then you have the Judah and Tamar story and…..yeah, if these are the chosen people it gives me hope that I might qualify somehow.

My mother made the observation the Bible has pretty much every sin somewhere in Christ’s extended family line. She saw it as appropriate all sin was practically written in the DNA of the Redeemer. 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Calm

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

My mother made the observation the Bible has pretty much every sin somewhere in Christ’s extended family line. She saw it as appropriate all sin was practically written in the DNA of the Redeemer. 

Huh, does that make the rumors about David and Jonathan even more likely if his ancestors are collecting all the sins like they are Pokémon?

Edited August 17, 2023 by The Nehor

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That happened but the law in Deuteronomy doesn’t have such an exception. Even still that would give Simeon the birthright. Unless you argue that Simeon and Levi’s circumcision murder plot disqualified them in which case Judah should get it. Unless the plot to sell Joseph applies in which case okay, now it is Joseph’s. I can accept a divine exception. It is almost like Deuteronomy was written to say not to act like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who ALL gave the birthright to the non-firstborn.

There is also a reading of the story of Reuben where it was not adultery. That reading goes like this: When Rachel was alive Jacob kept her in his tent. When she died it was Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaiden, who took Rachel’s place. This is sometimes attributed to Bilhah’s beauty or to Jacob seeing her as the closest thing to his lost love (personal note: that is yucky!). Reuben was upset since his mother (Leah) was a primary wife and saw this as a slight so he overthrew Bilhah’s bed and had Leah moved in. This was also seen as a great slight that may have been the reason Jacob took the birthright away.

Reuben is in many ways the most sympathetic of the oldest 10 brothers as he is the one who convinced the others not to kill Joseph and planned to rescue him. He gets a bad rap. Then again I am also sympathetic to Simeon and Levi murdering the guy who raped their sister and murdering those who condoned it. Then you have the Judah and Tamar story and…..yeah, if these are the chosen people it gives me hope that I might qualify somehow.

I've always loved that God's chosen people (the family line of the covenant) were all pretty much disasters.  All families are messy and the ones in the bible, dysfunctionally so.  It's a huge hope for every parent and child that also has a messy family, that they are not abnormal and that God is good at working with messy.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

All families are messy and the ones in the bible, dysfunctionally so.

Except for Job’s family, which appears to have been ideal, up to having 7 sons….

Ideal until Satan comes along with his bet.

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree with you in that I think it would be helpful if our leaders were more able and willing to recognize and discuss changes and missteps rather than just pretend they don't exist.  I think it's a holdover philosophy from a different era and that it hurts more than it helps.  

And I'm glad that you have found something that works for you as well.

Thank you. You are a very nice person.

[Teancum]

On 8/16/2023 at 2:43 PM, bluebell said:

Hagar was never considered a wife in that arrangement to begin with, and she knew that she was no equal to her mistress Sarah. 

(It's definitely a messed up event).  

More evidence that to rely on the bible to justify many wives and concubines is a poor apologetic. Wive and especially concubines were simply treated as property.  Like sheeps and cows.

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I believe in D&C 132 and other actual revelations given to the Presidents of the Church on the subject (regardless of canonization).  So yes, I believe polygamy is an eternal principle withdrawn by the Lord because of agency, circumstances, and weakness.

It was "withdrawn" because the US government was going to essentially destroy the church so the church capitulated.  Plus the leaders wanted Utah to be a state.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

More evidence that to rely on the bible to justify many wives and concubines is a poor apologetic. Wive and especially concubines were simply treated as property.  Like sheeps and cows.

I agree.  I don't think the Bible alone should be used as a standard for truth.  That's one reason I reject sola scriptura religions.   

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

It was "withdrawn" because the US government was going to essentially destroy the church so the church capitulated.  Plus the leaders wanted Utah to be a state.

Yes, that's historical fact.  It's just not the only fact at play in its withdrawal.

[cinepro]

On 8/14/2023 at 4:02 AM, Sara H said:

 Is he a polygamous, though?

I firmly believe that when I die, I will receive a heavenly reward roughly equivalent to $1 billion.

Am I a "billionaire"?

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

I firmly believe that when I die, I will receive a heavenly reward roughly equivalent to $1 billion.

Am I a "billionaire"?

Hey, long time no see!

[MustardSeed]

9 hours ago, cinepro said:

I firmly believe that when I die, I will receive a heavenly reward roughly equivalent to $1 billion.

Am I a "billionaire"?

I think if you believe you’ll be a criminal in the next life, you are a criminal due to the mind set.  Less about stuff more about mindset, with polygamy. 

[juliann]

On 8/15/2023 at 4:56 AM, 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. Is there a choice for the first wife if she wishes to take part in a sealing with another woman?  Does Section 132 state that she does not have a choice in the matter?

  

So much question begging....    You cannot discuss polygyny without polyandry because all women are eventually sealed to all of their husbands so everything you are assuming for males applies to females. (And it is no longer a secret that women are also being sealed to a second living husband by special permission so there is no more pretending on that point.)  Since your argument is based solely on eternal hypotheticals, you MUST include polyandry. At that point it all falls apart because it becomes a spiderweb of relationships based on nothing but guessing. 

If this was another less sensitive topic, it would require us to put aside the question begging and deal with the problematic nature of how we envision sealings. 

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, cinepro said:

I firmly believe that when I die, I will receive a heavenly reward roughly equivalent to $1 billion.

Am I a "billionaire"?

I hope not. It seems like the general rule is that they are insecure idiots.

[The Nehor]

On 8/17/2023 at 9:48 AM, Calm said:

Except for Job’s family, which appears to have been ideal, up to having 7 sons….

Ideal until Satan comes along with his bet.

Beware being the subject of one of God’s bar bets. He takes them VERY seriously.

[manol]

On 8/14/2023 at 3:15 PM, Malc said:

 

@Malc, I'm having a hard time with the formatting so I'm just going to use old-fashioned quotation marks where I'm quoting you:

"I can be a bit abrasive at times, for sure. I hope that you'll take my replies below in the same non-confrontational spirit?"

Absolutely! Thank you for replying in such detail. I apologize for taking so long to write back; I had a situation come up that demanded all of my available time and attention. 

To give you some context, I was active in the LDS Church from the early 70's to the mid 90's. I am not currently a member of any religious group.

"I infer, then, that you believe Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 to be in some way more reliable, or authentic, etc., than the plain reading of D&C 132:64." 

I believe that the principles taught in Alma Chapter 32 and Moroni Chapter 7 are fundamental and eternal. If a specific teaching or instruction fails the test proposed by those chapters, then it is not part of my belief system.  Those tests are imo the belief-system counterpart of the scientific method (the controlled testing of hypotheses). 

"Is there a solid basis for that?"

I suppose the answer to that question is a matter of opinion, with my opinion clearly being in the minority. I don't think the Church teaches its members to put its scriptures or its teachings to the Alma Chapter 32/Moroni Chapter 7 test.

"All that an appeal to Alma/Moroni tells me is that there are apparently contradictory sections in the official scriptures."

Imo what you just pointed out – that there are apparently contradictory sections in the official scriptures – is an indication that the scriptures are not complete and infallible guides. Fortunately the LDS Church places a fairly strong emphasis on seeking, having been founded by a young seeker. 

"How can people tell, in general, how to resolve this and similar conflicts?"

I cannot definitively answer that question for anyone other than myself.  My suggestion would be that a person follow the highest truth and the brighest light they can perceive, making course corrections along the way as needed, because realistically none of us are going to start out with our compass perfectly aligned with God.  (For a non-believer, I would rephrase as follows:  Follow the highest truth and the greatest good you can perceive, making course-corrections along the way as needed, because realistically none of us are going to start out with our compass perfectly aligned to the highest morality.)

"But (sorry, no offence intended) you are simply stating your opinion, with no official backing - so why should I believe you?"

You SHOULDN'T "believe" me!!  I'm just an anonymous former Mormon with a keyboard and access to the internet.  Believe what rings true to YOUR soul. 

"But it is all canonised. I take that to mean that, even if some of the content was man made, it is of equal weight to the rest."

I understand the concept of giving all canonized scripture equal weight. In my opinion that is a man-made concept, and one which I do not subscribe to. By way of example, does it really make sense to give Paul's teachings about women speaking in church equal weight with Christ's teachings on the First and Second great commandments? I think Paul would be mortified at the thought.

"I don't recall any lessons, GC talks, etc., that would suggest that there are parts of D&C 132:64 that we can safely ignore. And while we can imagine possible endings, members currently have no warrant to go beyond what is there."

I can't argue against that!

So here's an alternative concept:  The Tree of Life has many branches, each of which, when followed to its apex, reaches the sky. I respect the LDS Church as one such path, and a particularly useful one at that, thanks in large part to teachings like Alma Chapter 32 and Moroni Chapter 7.

"And, as Happy Jack Wagon points out, the God of the OT is very much a God of coercion."

God is portrayed as frightening and coercive and vengeful and so forth in the Old Testament. I do not believe this is the way God really is, but concede that the preponderance of scriptural evidence (based on sheer volume) is probably against me. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by manol

[manol]

14 hours ago, juliann said:

You cannot discuss polygyny without polyandry because all women are eventually sealed to all of their husbands so everything you are assuming for males applies to females. (And it is no longer a secret that women are also being sealed to a second living husband by special permission so there is no more pretending on that point.)  Since your argument is based solely on eternal hypotheticals, you MUST include polyandry.

Agreed!

14 hours ago, juliann said:

At that point... it becomes a spiderweb of relationships...

Yes I realize I'm quoting you somewhat out of context here, but MAYBE the way things really are "up there" IS web-like, and maybe Joseph Smith was killed before he got the follow-up revelation promised in the final verse of Section 132 which would have introduced The Web.  So it has taken a while, but indications of The Web are arguably starting to showing up "down here". 

[The Nehor]

On 8/16/2023 at 7:20 PM, JLHPROF said:

Some theories follow that Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac was a consequence of his treatment of Hagar and Ishmael.

But his obedience and humility saved Isaac's life.

So a man mistreated his concubine and son and God decided the best punishment was to have his other son killed.

That would mean God has very poor aim when it comes to the whole “justice” thing.

[Sara H]

21 hours ago, juliann said:

So much question begging....    You cannot discuss polygyny without polyandry because all women are eventually sealed to all of their husbands so everything you are assuming for males applies to females. (And it is no longer a secret that women are also being sealed to a second living husband by special permission so there is no more pretending on that point.)  Since your argument is based solely on eternal hypotheticals, you MUST include polyandry. At that point it all falls apart because it becomes a spiderweb of relationships based on nothing but guessing. 

If this was another less sensitive topic, it would require us to put aside the question begging and deal with the problematic nature of how we envision sealings. 

It is evident that you tend to make declarative statements without providing substantiating evidence. In my perspective, when an individual endeavors to engage in a discourse by employing a series of assertions such as "you cannot," "you must," or "it would require" within a concise paragraph, it may be inferred that said individual harbors a certain level of uncertainty regarding their convictions and is attempting to impose their viewpoint upon others. 

 

Throughout his childhood and into his adult years, Jesus was renowned for his propensity to pose numerous questions . 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Sara H

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Sara H said:

It is evident that you tend to make declarative statements without providing substantiating evidence.

This is a really amusing thing to see you say this to someone else. 

I've been trying to get you to provide substantiating evidence for things you've said on this board since you first created your account the day after AtlanticMike (previously known as Mike Livingston) got banned (while posting as Truth Teller).

Edited August 19, 2023 by InCognitus

[JLHPROF]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So a man mistreated his concubine and son and God decided the best punishment was to have his other son killed.

That would mean God has very poor aim when it comes to the whole “justice” thing.

Have you read the Old Testament?

Remember when God killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt.

[manol]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Have you read the Old Testament?

Remember when God killed all the firstborn sons in Egypt.

The conclusions one arrives at depend on the premises one begins with.

If one begins with the premise that God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons, then one might conclude that the Old Testament does not accurately portray God.

If one begins with the premise that the Old Testament is the Word of God and therefore an accurate portrayal of God, then one might conclude that God is neither consistently good nor consistently fair, and that God favors some of his children over others.   

Imo there is ample evidence to support either premise, such that in practice what often ends up happening is that we believe what we WANT to believe.  And I don't see anything wrong with that -  imo BOTH are paths by which we will learn and progress. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by manol