ScriptureLover Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Urroner:From what I can see, Rollo won't be happy unless every time Joseph Smith's, BY's, or any of the early polygomists' names are mentioned, polygamy has to been mentioned somewhere in it. I wonder why. SL:Because he wants what we all want, MORE WIMMIN! ***BRING BACK POLYGAMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*** Link to comment
LadySundancer Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Urroner:From what I can see, Rollo won't be happy unless every time Joseph Smith's, BY's, or any of the early polygomists' names are mentioned, polygamy has to been mentioned somewhere in it. I wonder why. SL:Because he wants what we all want, MORE WIMMIN! ***BRING BACK POLYGAMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*** Now, SL,Can you honestly picture one man living with a collection of women under the same roof? What do you see as the benefits of such an arrangement?Lady Sundancer Link to comment
emaughan Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Can you honestly picture one man living with a collection of women under the same roof? What do you see as the benefits of such an arrangement?Let me answer!!Longer Honey Do lists, more politics to deal with, instead of not understand what one person is "really" saying - not understanding what a group is "really" saying, not just making a careless remark that gets one person upset - now it gets a whole group upset, and it would far harder for the husband to find a place of "escape" in the house. Since I am not a practicing polygamist, nor do I plan on being one as I value the Lord's wishes on such things, I can only look back to my family history to see the good, bad and ugly of plural marriage. What I found (this is only Maughan and Merril family history that I have done some study on) is that the women and men had a tough time due to all the work they had to do (this was more an issue with life on a new frontier than with marital conditions). The women greatly appreciated the support of sister wives. All had a strong testimony of plural marriage. They loved God and the church. I have not found any cases of jelousy but I have seen "hints" that some felt others may have had more support. The women were very protective of their husbands. The husbands had no life of their own. Their is a lot more information that I would like to get my hands on.Finally one last point - the fruits of the practice. Some of the finest people I have met are decendants from plural marriage. Sure I'm biased since I hold myself up as a sterling example , but seriously a lot of good people came out of those two families. I'm very greatfull that polygamy was practiced and proud to be a decendant of such good people. Link to comment
Rollo Tomasi Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 It was edited to shorten it. That it was edited specifically to remove all references to polygamy is your own assumption. And it has already been addressed adequately on this thread. Scott:No surprisingly, I beg to differ:1. As a trained journalist and writer, can you with a straight face say that the editing of the Ensign Bathsheba Smith article did not have the intent (among perhaps others, like space) to edit out any hint of polygamy that was prominently displayed in the original article? I think the answer is obvious from the comparison I originally posted to begin this thread. From that, it is clear that something as small as individual words in a sentence were modified to turn the 6 families of George A. Smith into one family of the monogamous couple of George A. and Bathsheba Smith. To blame it solely on "shortening the article" is absurd when you look at the actual changes that were made.2. This is part of a trend that has been going on for some time in the Church -- I call it "whitewashing history." You and I have discussed previously the booklet handed out to all students in this year's Gospel Doctrine class called Our Heritage, and how it effectively hides (or at least downplays) the role of plural marriage in LDS history (by putting it 50 years out of sequence, and then only admitting that JS received the revelation but being careful not to admit that JS actually practiced it himself). You responded by saying there is a part in the Gospel Doctrine lesson manual that speaks of polygamy -- and what I pointed out is that little blurb about polygamy was not even part of the main lesson (but the sixth and last "Additional Help") and was not even to be brought up unless a member of the class brought it up first. The trend, I think, is obvious .... 3. It think it's clear that in the general classes and magazines used in the Church today, every effort is made to avoid discussing (or to at least downplay) polygamy. I'm not saying the Church doesn't have good reasons to do this, and our polyamous past is embarrassing to many (especially those trying to mainstream the Church), but let's call a spade a spade. Specifically editing history to excise out past embarrassing practices is intellectually dishonest, and we all know it. Let's stop trying to make out the pioneers as monogamous when they were willing to give their lives and all their possessions to be polygamous. Imo, it is disrespectful of "our heritage" and the sacrifices those pioneers made to follow God as they saw fit. Link to comment
Rollo Tomasi Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 What we know is that all marriage partners of our ancestors are sealed when their temple work is done. I can marry 10 men and after I'm dead my daughter could seal me to all of them. Why they make distinctions is probably a carry-over but the reality is that everyone is ultimately sealed to everyone..and the LDS belief is that all ordinances will be done for everyone in earth time. My dear Juliann:I was speaking of a form of polygamy continuing today among THE LIVING, not the dead. This Sunday, go up to your bishop and ask to see page 72 of Book 1 of the CHI (it's not a secret and he surely will show it to you). You will read there the following:"Living Women: A living woman may be sealed to only one husband."Now, Juliann, go down 2 paragraphs and you'll read the following:"Living 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."Now, Juliann, do you see the difference? Hopefully it is obvious. A widower (like Dallin Oaks in our example) can be married for time and eternity to a 2nd woman who has not already been sealed to another (like Kristen Oaks, Dallin's 2nd wife); whereas, a widow already sealed to a man (like Kristen Oaks, if Dallin were to die first, which is likely since he is quite a bit older than her) cannot be married for time and eternity to a 2nd husband. In the hereafter, Dallin Oaks will have two wives -- his first wife, June, and his second wife, Kristen. Obviously, June and Kirsten Oaks will have only one husband -- Dallin.This is a form of polygamy that exists in the LDS Church today. The differences on page 72 of the Handbook are set out this way in recognition of polygamy requirements (i.e., a man can have multiple wives, but a woman can have only one husband). I hope this clears up what I meant. Contrary to what GBH has said, polygamy remains "doctrinal" and lives on (albeit in a modified form) in the LDS Church today. Link to comment
Smith Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I hope this clears up what I meant. Contrary to what GBH has said, polygamy remains "doctrinal" and lives on (albeit in a modified form) in the LDS Church today. So? Link to comment
t2t2 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Juliann:Which means what? This is ridiculous. Having your name on a piece of paper is "practicing polygamy"? One more time....when temple work is done for everyone, there will be all sorts of sealings on paper. Please explain in detail what "polygamy" in the afterlife will be. I aked several questions a while back which would help us here but I guess you just skipped up to this. Let's try it again:You: I can marry 10 men and after I'm dead my daughter could seal me to all of them.Me: So let's assume she does this. Are you married to all these men for eternity? You: The term is sealed.Me: And yet the church promotes "eternal marriage". (shows link to lds.org where term used is "marriage" not "sealing")You: Ah, here we go....the "now you see plural marriage it now you don't" shell game when you are asked for documentationAnd THEN:Me: Using your example - say your daughter seals you to 10 men after you die. Are you suggesting this sealing ceremony is different from a "marriage" ceremony?You: Uh...seeing that my parents were already married and we children were brought in as part of the sealing ordinance...I do hope that I didnt' marry them all.--I don't know that I can asnwer any questions without knowing that you meant for all the above. Link to comment
juliann Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I don't know that I can asnwer any questions without knowing that you meant for all the above. Good. Now we understand one another because the first question I asked you was what does it mean. You continue to beat your chest over a big "if". I have no idea what eternity will look like...let alone how we will all relate to one another. And I think the idea that the celestial kingdom will be filled with women and a few men is absurd. I've asked it repeatedly. What does "eternal polygamy" mean? What is it? Describe how it functions. What a heavenly day is like and how it would be different. If those of you howling with self-righteous indignation would respond then perhaps we could understand and address your moral outrage. Link to comment
t2t2 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Good. Now we understand one another I must confess to not understanding you at all. Look back at the conversation between us I posted. Can you make out anything intelligent therein? It's not that I can't answer you. It's that I have no idea what you hold as a given in regards to your faith and our conversations tend to look like we're speaking completely different languages.Me: So let's assume she does this. Are you married to all these men for eternity? You: The term is sealed.Me: And yet the church promotes "eternal marriage". (shows link to lds.org where term used is "marriage" not "sealing")You: Ah, here we go....the "now you see plural marriage it now you don't" shell game when you are asked for documentationI mean...come on! What in the world are you talking about there??And this:Me: Using your example - say your daughter seals you to 10 men after you die. Are you suggesting this sealing ceremony is different from a "marriage" ceremony?You: Uh...seeing that my parents were already married and we children were brought in as part of the sealing ordinance...I do hope that I didnt' marry them all.If you think your responses to me make sense then I'm at a loss.Bottom line - I'm asking if you follow your example - your own example - and you marry 10 men in this life. Then when you die your daughter seals you to all 10 of them. What do you mean by sealing? The only term I can find for an ordinance like this on lds.org - where a married man and woman are eternally sealed - is "marriage". I'm asking if that is what you believe. Or do you somehow think being sealed to the 10 men you married in life is NOT being eternally married to them? Link to comment
Moksha Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I can somewhat understand why there are those who want to rewrite history. If you take out the warts, it becomes more appealing to converts. Still it creates the problem of cognitive dissonance for members when being confronted with actual history. With the internet it is impossible to avoid actual history. Link to comment
juliann Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Now, Juliann, do you see the difference? Hopefully it is obvious. A widower (like Dallin Oaks in our example) can be married for time and eternity to a 2nd woman who has not already been sealed to another (like Kristen Oaks, Dallin's 2nd wife); whereas, a widow already sealed to a man (like Kristen Oaks, if Dallin were to die first, which is likely since he is quite a bit older than her) cannot be married for time and eternity to a 2nd husband. In the hereafter, Dallin Oaks will have two wives -- his first wife, June, and his second wife, Kristen. Obviously, June and Kirsten Oaks will have only one husband -- Dallin.This is a form of polygamy that exists in the LDS Church today. The differences on page 72 of the Handbook are set out this way in recognition of polygamy requirements (i.e., a man can have multiple wives, but a woman can have only one husband). I hope this clears up what I meant. Contrary to what GBH has said, polygamy remains "doctrinal" and lives on (albeit in a modified form) in the LDS Church today. ::::sigh::::: And let's say this wife marries again and has children. The children can seal her to her second husband after her death. If you did temple work you would know that this has already occurred for all women. Now I'm going to ask again. What is this "eternal polygamy" you are so worked up over? What is it? Describe it. Explain to me what earthly difference it makes who I am sealed to as long as I am sealed? (Hint: In our theology the sealing is to link to the Father). Our theology also states (and states so openly that you are guilty of that "whitewashing" thing) that a sealing is dependent on worthiness...meaning there are going to be changes....going back to what does it mean. You could not possibly be ignorant of that.I spent a good deal of my adult life sealed to an abusive first husband that I divorced. It took about a month to get that cancelled to be sealed to my husband and daughter. Now I'm thinking really, really hard here...but my roses didn't bloom bigger and I didn't do the housework with stars in my eyes after the names on the papers were changed. You are banging your drums over paperwork. I was counseled repeatedly not to break my sealing to the first guy because it should be seen in the same light as a baptism....just because I decide I didnt' like something about how it was done it is not a good reason to cancel an ordinance.Now I am not happy about the double standard with women and men in earthly sealings. I think it is a policy hold-over that has no real purpose seeing that everyone is eventually sealed to everyone anyway. It gives you a drum to beat and that is about it. Link to comment
yaanufs Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Now I am not happy about the double standard with women and men in earthly sealings. I think it is a policy hold-over that has no real purpose seeing that everyone is eventually sealed to everyone anyway. That is a very interesting view you hold there.I'd be very interested if you could throw a few quotes from the brethren that suport that position.I'm not trying to trip you up or argue, I'm genuinely interested in that line of thinking. I'm not sure it is held very widely in the general church membership, but that does not mean it has not been mentioned by the prophets. Link to comment
t2t2 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Now I'm going to ask again. What is this "eternal polygamy" you are so worked up over? What is it? Describe it. Explain to me what earthly difference it makes who I am sealed to as long as I am sealed? (Hint: In our theology the sealing is to link to the Father).Let me present something else along the lines I THINK you mean.Say Brigham Young is "sealed" to 20 women eternally. And each of them is sealed to a father and mother and 20 levels across, up and down, the "6 degrees of sealings" reaches you and your husband and daughter. So you are sealed to God, to your husband and to Brigham Young. Is that your point?Let's take it from there. Are you any more connected to your husband than you are to Brigham Young? Or is it just one big happy hot tub of connection between all involved? Link to comment
juliann Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 What do you mean by sealing? The only term I can find for an ordinance like this on lds.org - where a married man and woman are eternally sealed - is "marriage". I'm asking if that is what you believe. Or do you somehow think being sealed to the 10 men you married in life is NOT being eternally married to them? Come on....you couldnt' possiblly be this dense. My question is clear. I am asking you what you think a "sealing" means in the eternities so I can understand why you are so worked up over this. Describe your "eternal marriage". Hello?I have stated repeatedly that I have no idea what marriage is going to look like let alone the eternities. I do know that heaven will be heavenly and whatever is there is going to be desirable. So I reject your insulting implications that it is going to be something sleazy or demeaning based on your wild-eyed assumptions of what you think my life will be.I'm not playing "what if" games with you about my life based on some premise you refuse to disclose. Link to comment
juliann Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I'd be very interested if you could throw a few quotes from the brethren that suport that position. The fact that there are no statements at all about your "eternal polygamy" is your problem to deal with not mine. You are the one speculating. What is with all the evasion, guys? Simple and very necessary question. Define, explain and expound on your awful "eternal polygamy" so we can get in the game or go play in a corner by yourselves. [let me add before you guys run with it that I have always talked about modern prophets] Link to comment
juliann Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Let's take it from there. Are you any more connected to your husband than you are to Brigham Young? Or is it just one big happy hot tub of connection between all involved? How many times do I have to say I don't know? Heaven is supposed to be the place of perfect love. For everyone. Right? You are making the accusations and innuendos and turning something you refuse to even define into something filthy. You explain it! Link to comment
Hacedor Costoso Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Juliann said:Well, I think most believers find the way Mormonism works to be the very reason they value their religion. To others...it frightens them to think that religion can change because it undercuts their need for certainty. They are happier in more fundamentalist leaning religions that leave no room for doubt.I see your point.Why not talk about what color socks I "might" wear tomorrow "if" it rains? You now understand your dilemma and I don't think goading questions will help you.Sorry Juliann - I wasn't goading you. It's just that that has been my experience with apologists since I left the church. I shouldn't have generalized about you.From a real "insider" who was told stories of polygamous life by her grandmother who grew up in a four wife household, the "stigma" is in your mind. I have yet to run across anyone who is lucky enough to have this ancestory that is not quite proud of it. It is no different than having a famous outlaw, king or anything in your ancestory. It was great fun talking to a cab driver in Geneva who knew about Mormons and being able to tell him that my ggrandparents were polygamists. Your problems with my family are your own. I suggest you critique your own family tree.I wasn't talking about a stigma on the part of those who practiced polygamy. I was talking about a stigma associated with polygamy by the modern Church communication machine.But that was however, a lovely strawman on your part Juliann.But since you brought it up, seeming to imply that I was not a "real insider"? Let me give you a taste...Born in the covenant, father Bishop, Stake presidency, mission presidency. Me - Bishopric, Elders Quorum president, Seminary teacher, Gospel Doctrine teacher, Executive secretary, Ward clerk, Sunday School and Primary teacher, Full-time mission, married in LA Temple, Baptized my children, regular temple goer, full tithe payer forever.All this during a span of my 38 years as an LDS.And I too come from a polygamous background...direct decendant of Phineas Young on one side and non-polygamists on the other.My wife is a descendant of Benjamin Franklin Johnson and Parley P. Pratt. She has relatives on the FLDS side and on the LDS side.Both of our ancestors told us of life in polygamous households. There was good and there was bad.I listened to and absorbed both.For those who believed strongly in the principle, it was good. For those who didn't believe that strongly - or simply didn't like it - it was bad.I wasn't critiquing your family Juliann. I have no problem with your family Juliann. And when necessary, I do critique my own family. Sorry to disappoint you - and you may find this hard to believe - but my point has absolutely nothing to do with you at all Juliann.My point is that it is obvious that the modern church communiction machine is not proud of the legacy of polygamy.I think the point is clear to the readers. Along with all the morality lectures accompanied by breastbeating and howls of self-righteous indignation there are always the breathless claims about "eternal polygamy". And yet there is not one statement from a modern prophet saying anything close to it. It is becoming a bigger and bigger bore...although the theatrics are sometimes fun to watch. Almost as fun as the drama you created upon accusing me of critiquing or having a problem with your family.And almost as fun as the drama you create when you accuse critics of a "morality lecture" just for discussing their opinions on polygamy - in this life or the next.Again - nice strawman - talk about theatrics! Hacedor Link to comment
t2t2 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 How many times do I have to say I don't know? Heaven is supposed to be the place of perfect love. For everyone. Right? You are making the accusations and innuendos and turning something you refuse to even define into something filthy. You explain it! Hmmm...so as far as you know you will not be married to your husband eternally - at least not any more than you are spiritually aligned in love and support and fellowship with all other Mormons?Is that your belief? You may not know - but you seem to imply that a sealing may very well be nothing more than an eternal CTR ring that says "look! we're all in this together with God!" Link to comment
t2t2 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I'm not playing "what if" games with you about my life based on some premise you refuse to disclose. Wow...I can say nothing more than bring up the fact that YOU presented an example and when I asked for explanation - you had none to give. Then when I present back the conversation you refuse to ever explain what you meant (which makes sense...your responses in each case were bizarre, to say the least...I thought I might be talking to a kid until you said you were married in the temple).Let's move on..... Link to comment
Rollo Tomasi Posted June 29, 2005 Author Share Posted June 29, 2005 And let's say this wife marries again and has children. The children can seal her to her second husband after her death. Sorry to burst your bubble, but any kids by the second husband, if their mother had already been sealed to her first husband, belong to the first husband. Page 74 of the Handbook:"If a woman who has been sealed to a former husband remarries, the children of her later marriage are born in the covenant of the first marriage unless they were born after the sealing was canceled or after it was revoked due to excommunication or name removal."Sounds like you are ok because your first sealing has been canceled, but in the case of a widow (already sealed to her dead first husband) who remarries and has children, those children go to the first husband in the hereafter. Polygamy can really suck sometimes.... Link to comment
juliann Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I wasn't talking about a stigma on the part of those who practiced polygamy. I was talking about a stigma associated with polygamy by the modern Church communication machine. That is a little different than making a blanket statement about what the church thinks. I see you have had to narrow your focus now. And I disagree with you...I think there are several topics that are "damned if you do and damned if you don't" for the church. I think those in charge of these things are just as proud of our polygamous forebears as we are. But that was however, a lovely strawman on your part Juliann.Not until you changed the question. Both of our ancestors told us of life in polygamous households. Link to comment
juliann Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Sorry to burst your bubble, but any kids by the second husband, if their mother had already been sealed to her first husband, belong to the first husband. Hate to burst your bubble but all of these things are done on an individual basis...with the First Presidency. And they don't use rule books. In fact, being treated as an individual so directly is what turned me from a casual member to a loyal and devout member. And that is why you guys don't know what you are talking about....and those of us who do are not going to spread out our personal lives and deeply meaningful interactions for your prurient interest. Link to comment
SlackTime Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 What I think Juliann is trying to say is this:We don't know what the hereafter will bring. There is every indicator that many early saints looked upon sealing as a way to ensure obtaining the Celestial Kingdom. There were dynastic sealings of men to men, and polyandrous sealings of married women to men who were believed to have had their calling and election made sure.This being the case we can't assume that the heavenly family won't be readjusted in the hereafter. There may be wives whose husbands didn't make it to the CK, there may be husbands whose wives didn't make it. But we are assured that we will receive every blessing promised us. So how will God do it? Will there be an exact one for one match in the CK? It seems unlikely that such a perfect falling out of circumstance will occur, but then with the foreknowledge of God I guess it is possible. If not, which way will the excess fall to? Well since polygyny has long standing favor in the Bible and polyandry has none, I would say that it is more likely that God expects there to be more women than men. How many more?? *shrug* I don't know. I myself expect that if I am able to "endure to the end" and receive the one woman I am currently sealed to, then I will be perfectly content to spend Eternity with her. Do we know what will happen? No. Can we presume to know what it means to spend Eternity with our mate in Heaven? Only in that we believe that earthly things are a shadow of Heavenly things and since our companion brings us joy and happiness in this life, we presume that will still be the case in the next. Do we know there will be sexual attraction and function in the next life? No. But we have been promised that we will obtain and Eternal Increase, however that functions. Because of the things we don't know, we do work in our temples so as to cover every contingency. If a woman is sealed to 10 men, we trust that it will be sorted out later by the individuals involved and God. If a man is sealed to 10 women will he have them all in the hereafter? I'm not convinced of that, but again I trust that God, the man, and the women will sort that out in the hereafter. The point is that they all met the requirement of entering into the proper and necessary covenants with God. All of these sensationalistic ravings on polygamy (and I include the almost identical threads that have preceeded and postdated this one are getting really tiring. Very little if anything new is said that hasn't been responded to. The naysayers seem caught up in their own wicked fantasies of what they think polygamy in the hereafter will mean and then they thrust those fantasies onto us.All I can say is stuff it, I'm sick and tired of your garbage. -Ed Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Juliaan:I agree. All this fuss about something we KNOW precious little about is silly.How my or anyone ancestors lived their lives will have absolutely NO bearing on MY place in the eternities. I have a hard enough time being responsible for what I do. Let alone what someone a long time ago did.I accept the fact that in the eternities I "MAY" be sealed to more than one wife. Right now, in this life, I have my hands full with just one. Link to comment
t2t2 Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Do we know what will happen? No. Can we presume to know what it means to spend Eternity with our mate in Heaven? Only in that we believe that earthly things are a shadow of Heavenly things and since our companion brings us joy and happiness in this life, we presume that will still be the case in the next.So the real defense/answer to the questions are: we don't know.But for those of us who actually ask questions, for which we are told to 'stuff it', there's always going to be a "why??". Why even do all these sealings if you all think God's just going to reshuffle things once you get there and set things up the way He wants them to be? Why marry the love of your life in the temple if a "sealing" means little more than "ticket to heaven". Why marry 1 woman to 10 men if you really don't have any idea if those are going to stick? Why not just start matching up single women with single men (dead ones, of course), get them all sealed up to someone and let God do what He does best - play matchmaker in the hereafer? Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.