Deleted

[brlenox]

It's simple.... we don't.
We don't need to. Christs' atonement is infinite.
For more information look up "infinity".

But even in your scenario it doesn't make sense. Where does plural marriage come in?

He simply believes that God came down and secretly married Mary so he and her could engage in "baby making". He believes that God, all holy - whose ways are far superior than we can even comprehend, did just as we inferior mortals do to procreate.

It is that belief only that many believe God is a polygamist. I personally know that God does not do as we do on earth. And that Mary's pregnancy was supposed to show God's power because she hadn't laid with a man. If she hadn't known a man, then she sure wasn't there engaged in a behavior that would cause her to know a man.

Also, I sure do hope that Mary is actually eternally sealed to Joseph. They had other children so if God is her eternal spouse then all the other children are God's not Josephs...actually they were not like unto Jesus. They were mortals and belong to Mary and Joseph.

Sometimes I wonder if people believe God pulled a weekend marriage/annulment thing just to make physical intimacy okay.

It really bothers me when people liken God to us. He is not us.

Anyways, that's what I understand some people to believe.

Surely, I have no issue for not taking my word on anything. However, if I provided a Brigham Young quote, and an Orson Pratt quote, toss in a bit of Joseph Fielding Smith, a little smattering of Melvin J. Ballard, and a little B.H. Roberts to top it all off would that persuade you in the least. If you are comfortable with your opinion on the matter, I am perfectly fine with that but I can provide references from the above gentlemen if you are interested.

However, one thing I will give you as a bonus:

I have not, to my knowledge, in my ministry said anything more important. I intend to talk about the Lord, Jesus Christ, about what He really did—and why it matters now….

Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice….

This truth [The Atonement of Christ] is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them. (Packer, Boyd K., The Mediator, Ensign, May 1977, p. 56)

Having tried this bit of counsel I can assure you that it is absolutely correct. When you can tie a particular point of knowledge all they way full circle until it touches the atonement then and only then do you understand that doctrine. Plural marriage is absolutely no different. IF you can't do that and won't believe the apostles and prophets and a seventy...good enough.

I actually don't care too much what those men said and don't know who half of them are. I'm the type who likes to think for themselves instead of being a mere follower. I operate by inspiration and discernment when it comes to questions about salvation and eternity and the mysteries of God.

You seemed to be more of a intellectual learned type who puts his faith or knowledge or confidence etc on the words of others. BY was A prophet but he is not the prophet I have ever lived under. His words were for those at his time not necessarily for our time now.

A bishop of a ward I move into is one of my judges, not the previous bishop as he never had stewardship over me. This is kind of what I'm trying to say. More bluntly, BY wasn't my prophet. I never lived under his stewardship. Does that make sense?

I understand the words but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I presume scriptures are meaningful to you, perhaps not, but if so is not Peter simply a Brigham Young for his day? James? John? isn't Paul simply a Bruce R. McConkie for his time. Does one man every reveal or possess all the knowledge required to save mankind simply because he lives, or do we not glean from all. Is Joseph Smith to be discounted simply because he passed beyond the veil and is no longer "your" prophet. However, to each his own and if the methodology you have chosen will ultimately bring you back to where you wish to be, and it will, I'm sure be just where you wish to be, then the plan has worked for you just as was intended.

Best of Luck.

[brlenox]

Of what religious persuasion are you?

I'm LDS.

Great, then at least we enter the ballpark through the same gate. However, You failed to answer my second question. Was Christ the Savior of our Father in Heaven or did he have a different Savior? Did that Savior provide an Infinite atonement as well?

[braingrunt]

That is true. But he denied what was called "spiritual wifeism" which was the name used and understood to mean an unofficial or not legal marriage.

When we read what Joseph said, it is absolutely clear he was denying any involvement in polygamy. His public deniel was in direct response to the public accusations made by the Law's and Higbee's etc. There was no wiggle room and no playing with words.
Joseph was absolutely unequivocal.
He was either lying or telling the truth.

If we claim that he was lying, and was indeed prepared to lie in such a public way, no doubt in front of people that knew he was lying; what confidence can we have in his other public claims? Angels, gold plates etc?

Joseph's integrity is on the line here. He was either a truthful man who wasn't afraid to declare the truth, or he was something else. If something else, he would not deserve our respect nor our devotion.

I used to follow the party line on this. But when I actually took the time to look at the evidence, especially the contemporary accounts, it became obvious things were not as they seemed. Joseph was no polygamist.

Interestingly, a wordprint analysis of D&C 132 discounts Joseph Smith as the author.

As shadow pointed out, he wasn't doing Bennet's "Spiritual wifeism" either. But it doesn't really matter to me if Abraham had some connection to the truth while Joseph didn't. Abraham's intent was to deceive and he did deceive. I think Joseph might have some connection to the truth but if not I find the difference unimportant.
To dicker over the difference seems Pharisaical.

[Robin Hood]

Of what religious persuasion are you?

I'm LDS.

Great, then at least we enter the ballpark through the same gate. However, You failed to answer my second question. Was Christ the Savior of our Father in Heaven or did he have a different Savior? Did that Savior provide an Infinite atonement as well?

The Father is the Most High God. He is from everlasting to everlasting. He is the self existent one. He has no saviour.

[brlenox]

Of what religious persuasion are you?

I'm LDS.

Great, then at least we enter the ballpark through the same gate. However, You failed to answer my second question. Was Christ the Savior of our Father in Heaven or did he have a different Savior? Did that Savior provide an Infinite atonement as well?

The Father is the Most High God. He is from everlasting to everlasting. He is the self existent one. He has no saviour.

Well, good enough. Thanks for your input.

[Col. Flagg]

Polygamy would never have even been an issue if it involved multiple men being sealed to one woman. =))

[Older/wiser?]

Having looked at the previous posts, I have a 2 part comment. What was the Saviors greatest accomplishment? If you state the atonement, (which I would ). What are your thoughts and what do you interpret John 5:19 to reference. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. V20 For the Father Loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. I recall that Bruce McConkie said this was the most important scripture. Seems pretty clear to me, any thoughts.

[shadow]

Hunter was only sealed to his first wife, not his second. You shouldn't keep claiming otherwise.
I can't find anything on Benson being sealed in marriage to his cousin. Where did you get that info?

[Welcome2Reality]

Ha! Again, liars and hypocrites. You said in my post that polygamy isn't allowed yet you're discussing it here. This is why I left your church, you give me less hope.

[brlenox]

Ha! Again, liars and hypocrites. You said in my post that polygamy isn't allowed yet you're discussing it here. This is why I left your church, you give me less hope.

Really? I checked my mom's room and you weren't there. Now whose telling the tall tales...?

[brlenox]

Hunter was only sealed to his first wife, not his second. You shouldn't keep claiming otherwise.
I can't find anything on Benson being sealed in marriage to his cousin. Where did you get that info?

I found a couple of things that may be adequate references:

This source is footnote number six from an article in DIALOGUE:A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, VOL.41,NO.4, Bergera:Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture page 83 at this link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... V41N04.pdf

Ezra Taft Benson, Diary, April 25, 1950. For context and full citation, see Gary James Bergera, “Weak-Kneed Republicans and Socialist Democrats”: Ezra Taft Benson as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 1953-61, Part 2, Dialogue : A Journal of Mormon Thought, (Winter 2008, vol 41). April 25, 1950 Was sealed in marriage to his recently deceased cousin, Eva Amanda Benson (July 6, 1882–August 10, 1946). Eva was the never-married daughter of Benson’s uncle Frank Andrus Benson. Flora had first suggested acting as proxy for Eva, then did so during the vicarious ordinance performed by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith in the Salt Lake Temple. “I have never witnessed a more unselfish act on the part of any person,” Benson recorded, “and I love Flora all the more because of it. The Lord will richly bless her for this act of unselfish love for Eva and me and the Kingdom. Flora is one of the choicest daughters of our Heavenly Father.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6952 ... unter.html

President Hinckley affirmed the eternal nature of the marriage between Sister Hunter and the former church president, whose first wife, Claire Jeffs, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's disease and is now buried beside him in the Salt Lake Cemetery.

Inis Hunter "will now be laid to rest on the other side," he said. "They were sealed under the authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood for time and for all eternity," he said, recalling the marriage ceremony he performed for them in the Salt Lake Temple in April 1990.

[MMbelieve]

Isn't it a bit sexist that the men can marry as much as they like and women can't? Oh I forgot, as long as you have breasts, you must have long hair and wear skirts. My question has already been answered.

The sexist angle has zero persuasion or effect on those who believe in polygamy. Also, emotional pleas and turning things around get smashed down too.

It's a take it or be a bad mormon kind of thing.

[MMbelieve]

Hunter was only sealed to his first wife, not his second. You shouldn't keep claiming otherwise.
I can't find anything on Benson being sealed in marriage to his cousin. Where did you get that info?

This source is footnote number six from an article in DIALOGUE:A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, VOL.41,NO.4, Bergera:Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture page 83 at this link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... V41N04.pdf

Ezra Taft Benson, Diary, April 25, 1950. For context and full citation, see Gary James Bergera, “Weak-Kneed Republicans and Socialist Democrats”: Ezra Taft Benson as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 1953-61, Part 2, Dialogue : A Journal of Mormon Thought, (Winter 2008, vol 41). April 25, 1950 Was sealed in marriage to his recently deceased cousin, Eva Amanda Benson (July 6, 1882–August 10, 1946). Eva was the never-married daughter of Benson’s uncle Frank Andrus Benson. Flora had first suggested acting as proxy for Eva, then did so during the vicarious ordinance performed by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith in the Salt Lake Temple. “I have never witnessed a more unselfish act on the part of any person,” Benson recorded, “and I love Flora all the more because of it. The Lord will richly bless her for this act of unselfish love for Eva and me and the Kingdom. Flora is one of the choicest daughters of our Heavenly Father.”

We know that we need a sealing to enter through the gates, right? If i wasn't married, my father would be responsible for me. So him getting sealed to his cousin could have been under this kind of idea, because she didn't marry and didn't have a supposed entrance through the gates?

Also, it doesn't say 1st 2nd or whatever cousin but if she was his first, he could have possibly found a non-family member to seal her to?

But, I venture to believe that the first situation fits, that he knew she needed a sealing and felt honored to provide that for her. I would bet a million dollars that if and when she decides she wants to have this or that man as her eternal companion (having never had the chance to marry in this life) then she absolutely will. I believe Benson will fully rejoice in it as well. I don't believe that her fate was decided that day to be eternally sealed as a second wife to her very cousin.

Women are not property to be told who and where and what. Just because he sealed her to him doesn't mean he took her choice or agency or opportunity. Which means he may very well have just his one wife.

All these sealings are not set in stone, especially the ones that occure with deceased peoples. No more than a baptism or endowment for an ancestor is set in stone as a done deal. We just don't know!

I think sometimes we get very narrow viewed and don't think outside the box when it comes to the early church.

If polygamy causes so much heartache and pains to so many people, how is that good? And to say it's a true act of love/unselfishness/ etc to accept polygamy is really placing a grand burden on mostly only one gender.

It's not right to tell women they are weak or selfish or somehow bad and wrong if they don't want it. Men wouldn't want it, it would hurt them too much and demasculinize them or cheapen them. We wouldn't want to do that to our men! Why do we say it's loving and Christ like to do that to our women?

Even God knows how much it breaks women's hearts. We would be a much better people if we were more on one a chord with this subject. If men and women both advocated for monogamy whole heartedly! If men stood up more and said no, we don't want to hurt our wives - we would be a great people. But all to often men forget that their first duty of the priesthood is to love their wife. You can't be talking so much about and defending polygamy and keep that 1st priority, in my opinion. Unless you are married to a rare breed of woman who actually wants to share you or pass you off to someone else, then by all means chat it up with HER.

[brlenox]

I think sometimes we get very narrow viewed and don't think outside the box...

Wiser words were never spoken.

[shadow]

Hunter was only sealed to his first wife, not his second. You shouldn't keep claiming otherwise.
I can't find anything on Benson being sealed in marriage to his cousin. Where did you get that info?

I've been corrected. President Hunter and his second wife were also sealed for eternity.

[BackBlast]

Neither.

Polygamy has a Godly purpose.

Jacob 2:30

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

It seems that he recognizes it as a potentially legitimate strategy for fulfilling His purpose

Moses 1:39

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

That does not mean that every instance of it's use comes from heaven.

An invite to ask God His perspective on Jacob 2, it actually says the exact opposite you speak of, and we were shocked to learn the same once you read it in context. I'd post a link but google search is no longer working on this forum.

I've read the verse set in multiple languages and do not see it as the opposite as you say. It is quite clear to me the meaning and context of verse 30. I've gone so far as to investigate previous editions of the Book of Mormon, all sources agree. If you would, please provide the logic or citation behind your claim. I have looked at this with very open eyes and can only see one meaning to verse 30, polygamy is reserved for when the Lord commands.

It has indeed been the subject of much prayer in my house, and the answers support my use of Jacob 2:30 here.

[Finrock]

Neither.

Polygamy has a Godly purpose.

Jacob 2:30

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

It seems that he recognizes it as a potentially legitimate strategy for fulfilling His purpose

Moses 1:39

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

That does not mean that every instance of it's use comes from heaven.

An invite to ask God His perspective on Jacob 2, it actually says the exact opposite you speak of, and we were shocked to learn the same once you read it in context. I'd post a link but google search is no longer working on this forum.

I've read the verse set in multiple languages and do not see it as the opposite as you say. It is quite clear to me the meaning and context of verse 30. I've gone so far as to investigate previous editions of the Book of Mormon, all sources agree. If you would, please provide the logic or citation behind your claim. I have looked at this with very open eyes and can only see one meaning to verse 30, polygamy is reserved for when the Lord commands.

It has indeed been the subject of much prayer in my house, and the answers support my use of Jacob 2:30 here.

This is from 5tev3 and provides an alternative understanding to that particular scripture: http://oneclimbs.com/2017/01/05/a-propo ... jacob-230/

-Finrock

[Finrock]

Neither.

Polygamy has a Godly purpose.

Jacob 2:30

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

It seems that he recognizes it as a potentially legitimate strategy for fulfilling His purpose

Moses 1:39

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

That does not mean that every instance of it's use comes from heaven.

An invite to ask God His perspective on Jacob 2, it actually says the exact opposite you speak of, and we were shocked to learn the same once you read it in context. I'd post a link but google search is no longer working on this forum.

I've read the verse set in multiple languages and do not see it as the opposite as you say. It is quite clear to me the meaning and context of verse 30. I've gone so far as to investigate previous editions of the Book of Mormon, all sources agree. If you would, please provide the logic or citation behind your claim. I have looked at this with very open eyes and can only see one meaning to verse 30, polygamy is reserved for when the Lord commands.

It has indeed been the subject of much prayer in my house, and the answers support my use of Jacob 2:30 here.

BLUF:

How 5tev3 believes it should be interpreted followed by the traditional interpretation. Read the link for all the details as to how he came to this conclusion...

“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph (Jacob 2:25), I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these precepts of men (2 Nephi 28:31) and I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction. (Jacob 2:34).”

Now compare it again with the original in Jacob 2:30:

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

And the version that represents the traditional understanding of the verse:

“If I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant unto me by having them take many wives and concubines (LDS Gospel Topics), I will command my people; in other respects (possible meaning) they shall hearken unto these standing instructions. (possible meaning).”

[Robin Hood]

5tev3's interpretation is most likely correct in my view.
It is not new though; the RLDS have used this interpretation since at least 1860.

There is, however, another interpretation I would like to suggest. Initially the scripture says that David and Solomon did wickedly in taking many wives and concubines. However, when reading in the Bible it appears that they were only criticized for taking wives from amongst the other nations which surrounded Israel.
The Nephite men are condemned along with David and Solomon. Is it that they were taking wives from amongst the other people in the promised land? If so, they were probably doing this in order to establish alliances and family bonds in an effort to co-operate with the indigenous tribes in establishing themselves in the land, and to form military alliances to defend themselves against the more numerous Lamanites.
This would also explain why the Nephite women were so upset (they weren't related to the plural wives).

It is interesting to note that Mormons and non-Mormons alike did the same thing in order to form alliances with native tribes and their hierarchies in the western US.

In the case of the Nephites, one of the reasons God (the Lord of Hosts') would have condemned the practice was because he had assured them that he would preserve them from all enemies so long as they lived righteously. They needed no treaties or alliances, other than with Him.

[brlenox]

Having looked at the previous posts, I have a 2 part comment. What was the Saviors greatest accomplishment? If you state the atonement, (which I would ). What are your thoughts and what do you interpret John 5:19 to reference. Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. V20 For the Father Loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. I recall that Bruce McConkie said this was the most important scripture. Seems pretty clear to me, any thoughts.

The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power” to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner, to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. (Joseph Smith, King Follet Discourse)

[braingrunt]

I have seen Jacob 2:30 reinterpreted a couple different ways. IMO all of them are flawed, including the one by Steve aka oneclimbs. Steve came the closest to helping me see another logic. I was tempted to believe the idea that raising seed cannot be an object of polygamy because it was already a key object. But in the end, I went and chewed on his thoughts for a while, reread, and decided he'd got hung up in the wrong places. And getting hung up in the wrong places can really turn reasoning upside-down.

I believe if you were to hand the chapter to several atheist English professors and asked them to disambiguate all pronouns and dumb it down to 3rd grade reading level, they'd come up with the standard LDS interpretation.

[MMbelieve]

Hunter was only sealed to his first wife, not his second. You shouldn't keep claiming otherwise.
I can't find anything on Benson being sealed in marriage to his cousin. Where did you get that info?

This source is footnote number six from an article in DIALOGUE:A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, VOL.41,NO.4, Bergera:Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture page 83 at this link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... V41N04.pdf

Ezra Taft Benson, Diary, April 25, 1950. For context and full citation, see Gary James Bergera, “Weak-Kneed Republicans and Socialist Democrats”: Ezra Taft Benson as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 1953-61, Part 2, Dialogue : A Journal of Mormon Thought, (Winter 2008, vol 41). April 25, 1950 Was sealed in marriage to his recently deceased cousin, Eva Amanda Benson (July 6, 1882–August 10, 1946). Eva was the never-married daughter of Benson’s uncle Frank Andrus Benson. Flora had first suggested acting as proxy for Eva, then did so during the vicarious ordinance performed by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith in the Salt Lake Temple. “I have never witnessed a more unselfish act on the part of any person,” Benson recorded, “and I love Flora all the more because of it. The Lord will richly bless her for this act of unselfish love for Eva and me and the Kingdom. Flora is one of the choicest daughters of our Heavenly Father.”

We know that we need a sealing to enter through the gates, right? If i wasn't married, my father would be responsible for me. So him getting sealed to his cousin could have been under this kind of idea, because she didn't marry and didn't have a supposed entrance through the gates?

Also, it doesn't say 1st 2nd or whatever cousin but if she was his first, he could have possibly found a non-family member to seal her to?

But, I venture to believe that the first situation fits, that he knew she needed a sealing and felt honored to provide that for her. I would bet a million dollars that if and when she decides she wants to have this or that man as her eternal companion (having never had the chance to marry in this life) then she absolutely will. I believe Benson will fully rejoice in it as well. I don't believe that her fate was decided that day to be eternally sealed as a second wife to her very cousin.

Women are not property to be told who and where and what. Just because he sealed her to him doesn't mean he took her choice or agency or opportunity. Which means he may very well have just his one wife.

All these sealings are not set in stone, especially the ones that occure with deceased peoples. No more than a baptism or endowment for an ancestor is set in stone as a done deal. We just don't know!

I think sometimes we get very narrow viewed and don't think outside the box when it comes to the early church.

If polygamy causes so much heartache and pains to so many people, how is that good? And to say it's a true act of love/unselfishness/ etc to accept polygamy is really placing a grand burden on mostly only one gender.

It's not right to tell women they are weak or selfish or somehow bad and wrong if they don't want it. Men wouldn't want it, it would hurt them too much and demasculinize them or cheapen them. We wouldn't want to do that to our men! Why do we say it's loving and Christ like to do that to our women?

Even God knows how much it breaks women's hearts. We would be a much better people if we were more on one a chord with this subject. If men and women both advocated for monogamy whole heartedly! If men stood up more and said no, we don't want to hurt our wives - we would be a great people. But all to often men forget that their first duty of the priesthood is to love their wife. You can't be talking so much about and defending polygamy and keep that 1st priority, in my opinion. Unless you are married to a rare breed of woman who actually wants to share you or pass you off to someone else, then by all means chat it up with HER.

After thinking about it I like what you think. It's probably true that we need a sealing and Ezra Taft Benson just wanted to make sure his cousin had a sealing, not that she would be his wife in the Celestial Kingdom. I read the data on people like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Heber C Kimball. Joseph Smith was sealed to like 34 people and only had children with Emma Smith. Those other sealings were probably so the women could have eternal life. Brigham Young was married to 55 women but only had children with 16 and Heber C Kimball had 43 wives and only had children with 17. It was reported that their other marriages were just for care taking.

Thanks. It feels right to me and I glad someone else can see its possibility. I have 1 lone of mormon pioneers and I had an ancestor married to BY as well, she was like 64 years old or something.

When Joseph died, many of his wives were then sealed to BY because BY believed it to be his duty to his brother Joseph to take care of them. If he was sealed to them, then I really don't fully understand that line of thinking.

We do know that women were married/sealed to more than one man back then. So yes, there is likely more to the sealings than what we automatically think.

For example the Kimball daughter, she was sealed to Joseph at 14 years old for one reason only...to join the Smith and Kimball families. She wasn't to actually be his wife.

Modern prophets have stated that at the end of this mortal time period, we will have lots of suprises. That says alot. What we think isint always true or complete.

If we think of Benson being sealed to his cousin in a polygamous view, we miss the other view. The view that he did an honorable deed as a priesthood man to ensure his family wouldn't be lost for eternity. Two very different feelings come to me depending on which angle I think of.

One I honor and have no concern but minimal questions, the other I view as quite negative and find it confusing and brings deep questions to my soul as a member of this faith and as a woman.

[MMbelieve]

I just had an interesting thought on why men shouldn't want polygamy. Women have agency who they want to be with in the spirit world. No man can force a woman to be with him in the eternities and if men can have an endless amount of wives then what's stopping all these women in the world from choosing to be a wife of Jesus Christ, Moses, Adam, or any of the great prophets of the world's history. Try competing over a woman with Jesus guys. Not so great an idea anymore right?

This is a valid point that I haven't seen brought up. And back in the early church there was a belief that women desired to be sealed to the highest priesthood to ensure their salvation "because of him".

That's flawed anyways but under that belief, a woman would chose the best of the best and only a handful of men would have wives. Good thing not all women are selfish and accept and love the ordinary man.

[shadow]

This source is footnote number six from an article in DIALOGUE:A JOURNAL OF MORMON THOUGHT, VOL.41,NO.4, Bergera:Ezra Taft Benson, Secretary of Agriculture page 83 at this link: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... V41N04.pdf

Ezra Taft Benson, Diary, April 25, 1950. For context and full citation, see Gary James Bergera, “Weak-Kneed Republicans and Socialist Democrats”: Ezra Taft Benson as U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, 1953-61, Part 2, Dialogue : A Journal of Mormon Thought, (Winter 2008, vol 41). April 25, 1950 Was sealed in marriage to his recently deceased cousin, Eva Amanda Benson (July 6, 1882–August 10, 1946). Eva was the never-married daughter of Benson’s uncle Frank Andrus Benson. Flora had first suggested acting as proxy for Eva, then did so during the vicarious ordinance performed by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith in the Salt Lake Temple. “I have never witnessed a more unselfish act on the part of any person,” Benson recorded, “and I love Flora all the more because of it. The Lord will richly bless her for this act of unselfish love for Eva and me and the Kingdom. Flora is one of the choicest daughters of our Heavenly Father.”

We know that we need a sealing to enter through the gates, right? If i wasn't married, my father would be responsible for me. So him getting sealed to his cousin could have been under this kind of idea, because she didn't marry and didn't have a supposed entrance through the gates?

Also, it doesn't say 1st 2nd or whatever cousin but if she was his first, he could have possibly found a non-family member to seal her to?

But, I venture to believe that the first situation fits, that he knew she needed a sealing and felt honored to provide that for her. I would bet a million dollars that if and when she decides she wants to have this or that man as her eternal companion (having never had the chance to marry in this life) then she absolutely will. I believe Benson will fully rejoice in it as well. I don't believe that her fate was decided that day to be eternally sealed as a second wife to her very cousin.

Women are not property to be told who and where and what. Just because he sealed her to him doesn't mean he took her choice or agency or opportunity. Which means he may very well have just his one wife.

All these sealings are not set in stone, especially the ones that occure with deceased peoples. No more than a baptism or endowment for an ancestor is set in stone as a done deal. We just don't know!

I think sometimes we get very narrow viewed and don't think outside the box when it comes to the early church.

If polygamy causes so much heartache and pains to so many people, how is that good? And to say it's a true act of love/unselfishness/ etc to accept polygamy is really placing a grand burden on mostly only one gender.

It's not right to tell women they are weak or selfish or somehow bad and wrong if they don't want it. Men wouldn't want it, it would hurt them too much and demasculinize them or cheapen them. We wouldn't want to do that to our men! Why do we say it's loving and Christ like to do that to our women?

Even God knows how much it breaks women's hearts. We would be a much better people if we were more on one a chord with this subject. If men and women both advocated for monogamy whole heartedly! If men stood up more and said no, we don't want to hurt our wives - we would be a great people. But all to often men forget that their first duty of the priesthood is to love their wife. You can't be talking so much about and defending polygamy and keep that 1st priority, in my opinion. Unless you are married to a rare breed of woman who actually wants to share you or pass you off to someone else, then by all means chat it up with HER.

After thinking about it I like what you think. It's probably true that we need a sealing and Ezra Taft Benson just wanted to make sure his cousin had a sealing, not that she would be his wife in the Celestial Kingdom. I read the data on people like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Heber C Kimball. Joseph Smith was sealed to like 34 people and only had children with Emma Smith. Those other sealings were probably so the women could have eternal life. Brigham Young was married to 55 women but only had children with 16 and Heber C Kimball had 43 wives and only had children with 17. It was reported that their other marriages were just for care taking.

Thanks. It feels right to me and I glad someone else can see its possibility. I have 1 lone of mormon pioneers and I had an ancestor married to BY as well, she was like 64 years old or something.

When Joseph died, many of his wives were then sealed to BY because BY believed it to be his duty to his brother Joseph to take care of them. If he was sealed to them, then I really don't fully understand that line of thinking.

We do know that women were married/sealed to more than one man back then. So yes, there is likely more to the sealings than what we automatically think.

For example the Kimball daughter, she was sealed to Joseph at 14 years old for one reason only...to join the Smith and Kimball families. She wasn't to actually be his wife.

Modern prophets have stated that at the end of this mortal time period, we will have lots of suprises. That says alot. What we think isint always true or complete.

If we think of Benson being sealed to his cousin in a polygamous view, we miss the other view. The view that he did an honorable deed as a priesthood man to ensure his family wouldn't be lost for eternity. Two very different feelings come to me depending on which angle I think of.

One I honor and have no concern but minimal questions, the other I view as quite negative and find it confusing and brings deep questions to my soul as a member of this faith and as a woman.

Maybe you're forgetting the wording of the covenant. The sealing we're referencing is that of actually being married for eternity, not just becoming part of a family or a group. It's the wife giving herself to her husband and the husband taking the woman as his wife.

[MMbelieve]

We know that we need a sealing to enter through the gates, right? If i wasn't married, my father would be responsible for me. So him getting sealed to his cousin could have been under this kind of idea, because she didn't marry and didn't have a supposed entrance through the gates?

Also, it doesn't say 1st 2nd or whatever cousin but if she was his first, he could have possibly found a non-family member to seal her to?

But, I venture to believe that the first situation fits, that he knew she needed a sealing and felt honored to provide that for her. I would bet a million dollars that if and when she decides she wants to have this or that man as her eternal companion (having never had the chance to marry in this life) then she absolutely will. I believe Benson will fully rejoice in it as well. I don't believe that her fate was decided that day to be eternally sealed as a second wife to her very cousin.

Women are not property to be told who and where and what. Just because he sealed her to him doesn't mean he took her choice or agency or opportunity. Which means he may very well have just his one wife.

All these sealings are not set in stone, especially the ones that occure with deceased peoples. No more than a baptism or endowment for an ancestor is set in stone as a done deal. We just don't know!

I think sometimes we get very narrow viewed and don't think outside the box when it comes to the early church.

If polygamy causes so much heartache and pains to so many people, how is that good? And to say it's a true act of love/unselfishness/ etc to accept polygamy is really placing a grand burden on mostly only one gender.

It's not right to tell women they are weak or selfish or somehow bad and wrong if they don't want it. Men wouldn't want it, it would hurt them too much and demasculinize them or cheapen them. We wouldn't want to do that to our men! Why do we say it's loving and Christ like to do that to our women?

Even God knows how much it breaks women's hearts. We would be a much better people if we were more on one a chord with this subject. If men and women both advocated for monogamy whole heartedly! If men stood up more and said no, we don't want to hurt our wives - we would be a great people. But all to often men forget that their first duty of the priesthood is to love their wife. You can't be talking so much about and defending polygamy and keep that 1st priority, in my opinion. Unless you are married to a rare breed of woman who actually wants to share you or pass you off to someone else, then by all means chat it up with HER.

After thinking about it I like what you think. It's probably true that we need a sealing and Ezra Taft Benson just wanted to make sure his cousin had a sealing, not that she would be his wife in the Celestial Kingdom. I read the data on people like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Heber C Kimball. Joseph Smith was sealed to like 34 people and only had children with Emma Smith. Those other sealings were probably so the women could have eternal life. Brigham Young was married to 55 women but only had children with 16 and Heber C Kimball had 43 wives and only had children with 17. It was reported that their other marriages were just for care taking.

Thanks. It feels right to me and I glad someone else can see its possibility. I have 1 lone of mormon pioneers and I had an ancestor married to BY as well, she was like 64 years old or something.

When Joseph died, many of his wives were then sealed to BY because BY believed it to be his duty to his brother Joseph to take care of them. If he was sealed to them, then I really don't fully understand that line of thinking.

We do know that women were married/sealed to more than one man back then. So yes, there is likely more to the sealings than what we automatically think.

For example the Kimball daughter, she was sealed to Joseph at 14 years old for one reason only...to join the Smith and Kimball families. She wasn't to actually be his wife.

Modern prophets have stated that at the end of this mortal time period, we will have lots of suprises. That says alot. What we think isint always true or complete.

If we think of Benson being sealed to his cousin in a polygamous view, we miss the other view. The view that he did an honorable deed as a priesthood man to ensure his family wouldn't be lost for eternity. Two very different feelings come to me depending on which angle I think of.

One I honor and have no concern but minimal questions, the other I view as quite negative and find it confusing and brings deep questions to my soul as a member of this faith and as a woman.

Maybe you're forgetting the wording of the covenant. The sealing we're referencing is that of actually being married for eternity, not just becoming part of a family or a group. It's the wife giving herself to her husband and the husband taking the woman as his wife.

I'm glad you pointed that out. That makes me think of all the marriage talk found in the scriptures. Also the bride talk too. We are (as a church) married to Christ as His bride. God to Christ and Man to woman. Maybe there is more symbolism pertaining to the marriage sealing we perform and that is why so many women can be "sealed" to one man and it's really a non-issue. I mean, how many will be sealed to Christ as His bride? Including men.

We certainly don't know exactly how it will all turn our or look like, we are only giving our best guess based in our knowledge and imagination.