Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Locked
lgr3065
captain of 100
Posts: 122

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by lgr3065 »

Kind of leaves out the men. There will have to be an abundance of women produced! Normal ratios of births of men/women are about equal. Yep, all the women get to be moms-how wonderful! Feel sorry for the many men the will be like male lions, kicked out of the pride because there is not enough females to mate with. What about their salvation? Similar problems occurred in Utah (why did only about 3% of the population practice it? What about the salvation of the 97% who did NOT practice it-not for lack of desire but lack of availability and status) and still a problem in the Fundamentalist groups. Polygamy is filled with so many telestial problems the very likelihood of it being a celestial thing is appalling.

User avatar
Sirocco
Praise Me!
Posts: 3808

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Sirocco »

lgr3065 wrote:Kind of leaves out the men. There will have to be an abundance of women produced! Normal ratios of births of men/women are about equal. Yep, all the women get to be moms-how wonderful! Feel sorry for the many men the will be like male lions, kicked out of the pride because there is not enough females to mate with. What about their salvation? Similar problems occurred in Utah (why did only about 3% of the population practice it? What about the salvation of the 97% who did NOT practice it-not for lack of desire but lack of availability and status) and still a problem in the Fundamentalist groups. Polygamy is filled with so many telestial problems the very likelihood of it being a celestial thing is appalling.
It was never a system meant to work on a mass basis.
It favours a few men of status and leaves out the rest. Another problem you get with polygamy groups is soon everyone becomes related and problems arise from that.

It's just not a system that works, the only multiple person relationship that could work is polyamory, but there's gayness in that so it's not very churchy :))

User avatar
sadie_Mormon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1479
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by sadie_Mormon »

I was a bit surprised when I read this post. I always enjoyed coming here because I felt free to discuss anything that fell under the umbrella of Mormonism. I guess times have changed.

Whether anyone agrees or not, Plural Marriage is and will always be a part of the Mormon faith.

User avatar
Jesef
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2603
Location: Unauthorized Opinion-Land

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Jesef »

At least a part of its history and practice. It is still practiced today in the sense of widowers being able to be sealed to subsequent wives (who are not previously sealed). So plural marriage IS still part of our religion, just not simultaneously in mortality. Nowadays the computerized databases keep this as straight as we can.

User avatar
sadie_Mormon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1479
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by sadie_Mormon »

Rachael wrote:And at risk of getting my post deleted, I will ask a few questions in general terms instead of naming names:

For the ladies who keep defending this, do you want to share your husband with me?

You? Well that's decision is in G_ds hands not mine. This is not how it works. It's not as simple as "do you want to share your husband with me". Both husband and wife/wives need to be on the same page. This is a family making a decision together. If G_d commands it absolutely I will share my husband with you.

How would you feel on the nights he was absent visualizing him being intimate with me?

Honestly I had to chuckle at this question. I care not to "visualize" my husband having intimate relations with my sister wives. That's their private time together and they are entitled to it just as I am. Plural Marriage isn't only about intimacy if it was then he could just sleep around without the commitment.

Would it pierce your heart with deep wounds?

No doubt it is VERY hard on any woman in this type of family dynamic. We are human. There's a adjustment period to any change that occurs in a family and certainly this would be a big one. It's not thrown on you like your husband comes home with some random woman one day. This is something the family prays about and discusses in great length and each should have received confirmation through prayer that this was right for the family.

If I was 17 and you were 43, hubby 47, would you think he dealt treacherously with you, the wife of his youth?

No. I don't picture many 17 year olds wanting to settle down that quickly especially in Plural Marriage but that's just my opinion from those I know of that age. Keep in mind It's not only his decision it's a family decision no matter the age.

Ladies stop defending the indefensible

Nothing to defend... the truth speaks for itself.

PS: don't rationalize that nobody gets jealous in the next life. God is in the next life and He admits He is a jealous God. Fidelity is eternal

My gosh of course we all get jealous! However it's about the awareness of your jealously. Accept it... communicate it... comfort it. Communicate how you are feeling and you'd be surprised how your family will comfort you. Don't be in denial of your feelings or you'll be miserable.

nvr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1112

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by nvr »

Remember guys, if you buy into the supposed history of this with Joseph Smith, it goes both ways. There was polyamory too - which means you've got to be willing to share your wife/ves with other husbands. Good luck with figuring out who's eyes the kids have.

This just leads to the point that we need to go over the history again. We need to resolve the fact that many undoubtedly lied about the practice during the temple lot case. History seriously got overwritten during that lawsuit.

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Rachael »

God alledgely appeared to JS but it was some unknown angel with a flaming sword that commanded him to practice polygamy.

No matter JS did not practice it per the commandments/guidelines in sec132 anyway. Emma didn't give her consent or even knew about most of the marriages, some were married women and were not virgins, ... but you won't read the stories of these women in all likelihood so ...

Warren Jeff's style Mormonism. No thanks for me.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Melissa »

Any guys here willing to give his wife to another man with "superior" priesthood or authority or influence?

I believe the whole thing is just a mess! I also believe that Joseph Smith was sealing families together and didnt intend for there to be the mess that there is. Im glad we do sealings in a way that make a whole lot more sense today!

User avatar
Jesef
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2603
Location: Unauthorized Opinion-Land

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Jesef »

He could have sealed men as his sons or women as his daughters, or maybe even as brothers and sisters, as the case may be. Why not do it that way? Seems ridiculous.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Melissa »

I never said Joseph knew exactly how to do it. I think, possibly, he understood the "end" purpose for sealing the family of God together and therefore he worked in the realm of men and women. He didnt seal grown men to him but used grown mens daughters....geez I dont know. Its kind of difficult to understand the whole thing. I think that they believed in superior priesthood status and if you were sealed to the prophet or apostles then it essentially sealed your salvation by being associated to such "holy" priesthood men.

It seems pretty prideful and selfish. I can just picture a bunch of women salivating at the mouth to be sealed to the prophet for their own selfish salvation while leaving the side of her husband. What shame that brought her husband! Today we are taught to remain with our spouse even if they are unbelieving because we may become a great influence in their life and possibly save them.

Personally I believe that women who want polygamy are either selfish or delusional.
I know people will disagree with that and thats fine.

I see it as a man who allows the state to help him support his family. Man up and take care of your family yourself. A woman who wants another woman to come in and take care of womanly duties (or selfish companionship that she should be working on with her husband not another woman) is kind of the same idea.

Having a husband can be pretty hard at times and sometimes makes you want to pull your hair out but "woman up" and take care of your role.

Of course this is just my opinion cause I find the whole thing stupid. It makes zero sense and has no known reason for salvation. I cannot find anywhere in the scriptures the necessity for salvation or the reason for or the purpose of polygamy.

I know why I got baptized- clearly stated in the scriptures. I know why men receive the priesthood, serve missions and why we receive our washing and annointing and marriage sealing to spouse for the family unit. That all is clear and makes sense to me and I have been given everything I need for those things, zero of which go against my conscience. Polygamy just has no place. It is no test of faith or test of God.

Maybe if abraham didnt enter polygamy we wouldnt have the ISIS problems we have today. And Jacob entered polygamy because he was tricked. He only wanted one wife. And his other two were because of the jealousy and fighting of his sister wives. Both very messy and I dont believe god condoned either one.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by rewcox »

Us, our parents, and our grandparents have not been involved with polygamy.

I'm not sure why there is so threads and posts on it.

User avatar
Elizabeth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11796
Location: East Coast Australia

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Elizabeth »

Hi Sadie,
Nice to see you posting again :)
Your insights into this lifestyle would be interesting. Can you share with us some of your experiences in this regard.
sadie_Mormon wrote:I was a bit surprised when I read this post. I always enjoyed coming here because I felt free to discuss anything that fell under the umbrella of Mormonism. I guess times have changed.

Whether anyone agrees or not, Plural Marriage is and will always be a part of the Mormon faith.

User avatar
Sarah
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6702

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Sarah »

Melissa wrote:
It seems pretty prideful and selfish. I can just picture a bunch of women salivating at the mouth to be sealed to the prophet for their own selfish salvation while leaving the side of her husband. What shame that brought her husband! Today we are taught to remain with our spouse even if they are unbelieving because we may become a great influence in their life and possibly save them.

It's true that things were done differently back then. At some point a woman with an unbelieving or unrepentant husband will want to progress, and she will need to be sealed to a worthy priesthood holder. Perhaps at that time there were some women that choose to stick it out with their husbands, but their children would also be affected, and all would miss out on blessings. I have a friend in this situation. She left the church as a young adult, got married, starting having children, then realized she made a mistake and came back. Nothing would be more sweet to her than to have her husband and children sealed to her, but her husband has his agency. Who are we to judge that some women back then didn't want to be held back.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Melissa »

I understand what your saying but how are we to know when this man may soften his heart. Love is patient and kind. Love doesnt leave because they dont get their way when they want it.

Everyone has the potential to go through hard times and many go through it in marriage. A marriage that goes through the bitter can be so sweet in time.

I think its still selfish to want to marry another man because you think you will be better off. How is this different than other things (at the surface) such as money or house or romance or looks etc.

She chose to marry him and if she decided to change on him then it is not at all hus fault for holding her back. She should simply live a good life and be an example and pray with her whole heart for her husband to be touched every single day!

User avatar
Jesef
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2603
Location: Unauthorized Opinion-Land

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Jesef »

A lot of this justification for polygamy assumes that this is the only shot you get and that God or the Eternal Order of Things (or the Universe) is essentially unfair. I consider polygamy an abomination. It is so obviously inequitable and imbalanced (think of Yin and Yang, positive and negative, not a Sun and Planets - wrong symbolism - as I see it). I don't care if you find a situation where people consented to or chose it or made it work. I don't believe God ever commanded it or that it actually exists in eternal relationships (Gods with multiple or harems of wives). This was confirmed by revelation to me, but consider it my opinion. Go get your own, so take it or leave it. People seem to get different answers - not going to explain the reason I think for that.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by freedomforall »

Jesef wrote:A lot of this justification for polygamy assumes that this is the only shot you get and that God or the Eternal Order of Things (or the Universe) is essentially unfair. I consider polygamy an abomination. It is so obviously inequitable and imbalanced (think of Yin and Yang, positive and negative, not a Sun and Planets - wrong symbolism - as I see it). I don't care if you find a situation where people consented to or chose it or made it work. I don't believe God ever commanded it or that it actually exists in eternal relationships (Gods with multiple or harems of wives). This was confirmed by revelation to me, but consider it my opinion. Go get your own, so take it or leave it. People seem to get different answers - not going to explain the reason I think for that.
It matters not what any of us believe concerning polygamy, it happened...genealogy proves it. I am related to Wilford Woodruff, of whom had several wives, one being Sarah Brown, she being the one I make family connection.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Melissa »

It is true that its pointless to argue if polygamy happened in the early church because we all know it did.

The issue I see is that people wont move past it and realize that we dont live it and the church is VERY against it. It bothers me when people say its the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and therefore required to gain eternal exaltation. I just dont see that anywhere in the scriptures nor are we ever taught anything resembling that belief.

If it truely is required then explain why there are appstles who chose to stay celibate after their eternal companion had passed on? Why didnt they marry again?

User avatar
Rachael
Captain of whatever
Posts: 2410

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Rachael »

Its not taught now days but it used to be. No seer stone required to dig. Its in the DoJ and other pre manifesto accounts

And some GAs have remarried in the temple

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Melissa »

I realize it used to be taught, but its not anymore in anyway. It was also taught that black men could never have the priesthood. Do people still hang on that?

It really struck me when I saw listed on the lds.org site (dont remember where) only the first wife of all the early polygamy apostles and presidents. I was confused by that. If its legit then why not list them? And I felt bad for all the other women who were not even worth mentioning.

The whole thing is something that should be left in the past. We have modern prophets and they have taught against polygamy for a while now. Brigham young was the big preacher who pushed polygamy but I realize that he was not MY prophet - he was the prophet to those who lived at that time under his stewardship. Doesnt apply to me.

Truth is truth and has always been taught and that doesnt rest on any single prophet. Prophets are set apart to run the church at a specific time.

User avatar
Jesef
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2603
Location: Unauthorized Opinion-Land

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Jesef »

freedomforall wrote:
Jesef wrote:A lot of this justification for polygamy assumes that this is the only shot you get and that God or the Eternal Order of Things (or the Universe) is essentially unfair. I consider polygamy an abomination. It is so obviously inequitable and imbalanced (think of Yin and Yang, positive and negative, not a Sun and Planets - wrong symbolism - as I see it). I don't care if you find a situation where people consented to or chose it or made it work. I don't believe God ever commanded it or that it actually exists in eternal relationships (Gods with multiple or harems of wives). This was confirmed by revelation to me, but consider it my opinion. Go get your own, so take it or leave it. People seem to get different answers - not going to explain the reason I think for that.
It matters not what any of us believe concerning polygamy, it happened...genealogy proves it. I am related to Wilford Woodruff, of whom had several wives, one being Sarah Brown, she being the one I make family connection.
Your first sentence can be read to suggest that I believe polygamy didn't happen and some people apparently misunderstood it that way. Obviously it happened. I'm just saying I don't believe it was or is or ever will be of God (I think JS or BY, or whomever originated it, as well as those who perpetuated it were off and I think their failed prophecies vindicate that interpretation). Even most of the practical excuses and justifications for it seem hollow and the good purported could have been accomplished through platonic compassion and care (such as brothers and fathers caring for their sisters and daughters or even adoptions or church welfare - better than we do it today even). It is very impractical as a system for the father in reality cannot give due attention to multiple wives and as many more children. He may be able to provide temporally but not emotionally - its quality of life is inferior in every way but numbers. I don't condemn anyone for believing or practicing differently, not my job. You're welcome to your own view, belief, or opinion.

And it does still exist in the mainstream LDS Church today, just not simultaneously, via previously sealed men being able to be sealed to subsequent wives - so, in effect, in most cases, it does not produce much multiplication nor the emotional neglect since it is not simultaneous but it still theoretically creates the spiritual/eternal situation of one husband to more than one wife. I don't believe multiple sealed/marriage relationships continue after death nor that God or Christ have multiple wives.

User avatar
sadie_Mormon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1479
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by sadie_Mormon »

Elizabeth wrote:Hi Sadie,
Nice to see you posting again :)
Your insights into this lifestyle would be interesting. Can you share with us some of your experiences in this regard.
sadie_Mormon wrote:I was a bit surprised when I read this post. I always enjoyed coming here because I felt free to discuss anything that fell under the umbrella of Mormonism. I guess times have changed.

Whether anyone agrees or not, Plural Marriage is and will always be a part of the Mormon faith.
Thanks! I've been busy for a while now and it's not always easy to get online and participate :)

Honestly I've posted many time regarding this topic and it seems to end up in the same place each time. Which is fine we all have our own opinions/views on topics. Plural Marriage is one of those topics that seems to jolt some members and maybe it's that inner fear that G_d will call them to practice, I don't know. I often wonder why members get somewhat defensive regarding it because in reality it is and will always be a part of Mormonism.

Personally, and this is just my own opinion, but the church will become more and more divided on various issues. It has been for some time now as to why you will find various secs of Mormons even ones who call themselves "independent". Gay marriage has obviously opened the discussion around Plural marriage which will be next on the chopping block. It may be what sends some members who are/were on the wall (undecided) to jump to one side or the other.

Personally I just think the federal government should stay out of all of it and leave it to the state level. We have too much of the federal government in our homes (and families) and it's been seeping into churches for years now. It's gotten to be way to much.

User avatar
sadie_Mormon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1479
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by sadie_Mormon »

Jesef wrote:A lot of this justification for polygamy assumes that this is the only shot you get and that God or the Eternal Order of Things (or the Universe) is essentially unfair. I consider polygamy an abomination. It is so obviously inequitable and imbalanced (think of Yin and Yang, positive and negative, not a Sun and Planets - wrong symbolism - as I see it). I don't care if you find a situation where people consented to or chose it or made it work. I don't believe God ever commanded it or that it actually exists in eternal relationships (Gods with multiple or harems of wives). This was confirmed by revelation to me, but consider it my opinion. Go get your own, so take it or leave it. People seem to get different answers - not going to explain the reason I think for that.
So are you saying when the Prophet Joseph Smith's revelation (Thus saith the L_rd...) to practice Plural Marriage was wrong? Do you think he was just a dirty old man who wanted to justify the sins of the flesh? When the Prophets after him continued to practice Plural Marriage were they wrong as well? So they all had been frauds... misguided... delusional...? If that's so, then why would anyone continue to be a member of a church that believes and practices it? Why would all those people keep following these Prophets while putting themselves in horrible danger due to the practice of Plural Marriage. If you've been to the Temple you know it's still alive and well.

I respect that you have confirmed by revelation what you find as truth and that's all good. However the way you write it is as if you're questioning the validity of the Prophets revelations. You say that you don't believe G_d ever commanded it nor that it exists in eternity so I have to assume you question the Prophet and founder of the church Joseph Smiths revelations.

User avatar
Jesef
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2603
Location: Unauthorized Opinion-Land

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Jesef »

I probably won't address all your points, sadie, but I'll tackle a few if I can. We probably don't see things the same way and that's fine. I'll start by saying that my paradigm allows for fallible prophets/leaders whose every word - or even purported revelations - do not necessarily have to be quotes from the Lord vouched for by Him. In my view history aptly reveals their errors. Going back and trying to bring all their contradictory statements into conformity is a fruitless exercise on which many people spend a lot of time to maintain or defend their view that the Lord's true church couldn't possibly have anything wrong with it, that it and its leaders past and present must be pristine and perfect (I'm exaggerating a bit). I'm okay with the flaws, which means they can be or could have been wrong about a lot of stuff and it doesn't bother me. The core doctrine and teachings of Christ are still the same. That's good enough for me.

How do you view the priesthood ban on blacks prior to 1978 and then changed in 1978? Do you agree with all the doctrines/teachings which were given prior to 1978 which basically said black people were cursed and ineligible for priesthood and higher temple ordinances on account of premortal disqualification? I think those teachings were false. I don't think the Lord actually changed His mind in 1978 after the Civil Rights movement. As I said, my view is okay with prophets being wrong (and even attributing it to the Lord). I try and hope to rely on the Holy Ghost to reveal the truth to me. My view of sustaining them does not mean total agreement with their teachings. They've never given counsel to me, in my lifetime, that I can remember, that I've felt was wrong or harmful. If I felt something was wrong, I would reject it. I don't protest their decisions either. They built City Creek Mall, for example, and a giant Conference Center, which can't either be considered modest expenditures (both $B's). It doesn't seem like the right way to spend such vast resources, no matter where the money came from, to me. I don't have to agree with or justify it, in my view, to still sustain and support them in their tough callings/jobs overall. I don't raise my hand in opposition or picket with a sign to express my disappointment or outrage.

D&C 132 is the most suspicious revelation in our D&C. Interestingly, we no longer sustain the cannon of scripture, or I might even object to D&C 132 (if the vote meant 100% approval). D&C 132 is one of the few sections of the D&C whose original handwritten photocopy is not online as part of the Joseph Smith Papers project: http://josephsmithpapers.org/site/corre ... rs-website. It was published for the first time in 1852 (8 years after Joseph Smith's death) by Brigham Young and the Saints out in Utah when they were battling the RLDS Church back in Nauvoo and Independence for supremacy and legitimacy as Joseph's true and only successor (of priesthood and keys, etc.). In my opinion, it is suspect and seems to contradict the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:23-35).

It is also true, and I won't take the time to quote the dusty sources (Journal of Discourses), that BY and several successors used to teach that plural marriage/polygamy was essential to exaltation. That teaching has been rescinded since 1904. I've taken the view that it was rescinded because it was false. Current practice basically vindicates my belief as well, polygamy is punishable by excommunication (illegitimized). With the changes that have legalized gay marriage, it is conceivable that polygamy could become legal again - but I bet the Church will not resume it.

I could be wrong, about a lot of things. I don't think my view necessitates the same all-or-nothing view that you've portrayed.

User avatar
Melissa
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1697

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by Melissa »

Thats interesting about the joseph smith papers, I will check it out. Thanks for the link.

I remember specifically when Pres. Uchdorf (hope I spelled right) stated in a conference not too long ago that mistakes were made in the earlier church. Another recent talk, that prophets and apostles are just men and are susceptable to all the things us regular folks are.

To stand by an old practice saying it was absolutely "more" correct than what we live now - even though its serious enough that if you live it you are excommunicated, is something that baffles me. Do people realize what excommunication means? That is the most serious punishment. It has eternal consequences.

I like robert's post about how one should not gather more possessions or be esteemed above another.

User avatar
sadie_Mormon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1479
Location: Northeastern US

Re: Polygamy Discussions and the LDSFF Rules

Post by sadie_Mormon »

Jesef wrote:That teaching has been rescinded since 1904.
Thank you for your message and being short on time I won't be able to give a proper response. However I'd like to add that these changes were due to society and government pressure. If they had continued to go against the grain sticking to the churches beliefs they wouldn't be the church they are today with millions of members. They had to change otherwise they would have not only risked imprisonment of members practicing Plural Marriage but also a huge loss in membership. Utah wouldn't be what it is today if it wasn't for that change.

Locked