You are interpreting this the wrong way. Yes, they will be sealed to the wife and the deceased husband, so they are going with the WIFE. (And the 2nd husband “loses” in a sense, his children to his wife and her first husband.) See what I’m talking about now?
.
Where do you get the idea that JS and BY didn’t want to practice polygamy? JS had been doing it secretly for some years before making the revelation public.
Are you saying that you prayed about this issue and you received confirmation that polygamy was the will of God for your church?
Those are some very interesting and, it seems to me, unbiased historical accounts. When I’ve read of the “secret council of the fifty” in what I took to be some anti-Mormon sources I just sort of brushed it off as something which may or may not have been true of the early LDS church and didn’t pursue to topic any further. These articles don’t have that ‘anti-Mormon flavor’ at all and seem well-documented and (if one can believe the sources and I see no reason not to do so) non-judgmental. The first article does seem to indicate that this was not an ‘all boys club’ and that, in the early church at least, women did share in some of her husband’s priestly duties. In the scant reading I’ve done regarding polygamy in the early church Joseph Smith actually comes off better, to me, than Brigham Young: there’s that one ‘stop your whining’ speech in J&D of BY’s that seems more than a bit misogynist while, in reading the accounts of Joseph’s attitude towards Emma, he seems to have a great deal of respect for (if not fear of!) her.
Paul (or anyone who knows!),
No that is not what I am saying. I find polygamy reprehensible when it is not ordained of God. And there are many members who are uncomfortable with the idea in general.
Although certain that God would require it of him and of the Church, Joseph Smith would not have introduced it when he did except for the conviction that God required it then. Several close confidants later said that he proceeded with plural marriage in Nauvoo only after both internal struggle and divine warning. Lorenzo Snow later remembered vividly a conversation in 1843 in which the Prophet described the battle he waged “in overcoming the repugnance of his feelings” regarding plural marriage.
Something like that. I don’t believe that polygamy is the will of God for our church NOW.
Well, of the histories I have read, I will make the generalization that it WAS something that most, if not all of them, initially didn’t want to practice. So I think you are right there. I could speculate as to WHY polygamy was instituted anyway, and I think there are some very good reasons actually, but I’m kind of loath to speculate on public boards because people take it and twist what you have to say. If you want to discuss this more privately, feel free to email me.
I don’t know how regular I will be, but I hope I can make some helpful contributions to mutual understanding.
I’m not sure exactly what is meant by ‘natural law’ here. Could you elaborate. I would not disagree completely with the conclusion that it was an experiment that failed. I think in some ways it succeeded beyond what a mortal man would could imagine, yet not in the ways expected. But as a whole, it did have its problems.
Yet in some instances it worked remarkably well. There are many instances where we could point to monogamous marriages as “not working” yet we wouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater and say we shouldn’t work on marriages. I agree that with polygamous marriages the problems are greatly magnified because of the difficulty, both for the men and women. But just because it didn’t work for all of the families (and maybe even the majority, I don’t really know) there are instances where it worked very well.
I have to laugh at this. Anything to promote the lesbian agenda (not you of course but those who try to legitimize it.) taking the homosexual nature out of the picture, I would agree otherwise with the outlook. The sister-wives who DID love each other (in a non-sexual way of course) and got along, had a wonderful family relationship. In a way I am a bit envious of that. I would love to have my best friend living next door and sharing in all the daily joys and chores of life.
I do believe that polygamy was good for “feminists” of the time. It is quite interesting that Utah was the 2nd state to allow women to vote (Wyoming being the first). The LDS church is not about putting women down, at least in my experience. (There are those men who don’t seem to understand this, but they are in error. That’s not what our general authorites teach us and I haven’t experienced much of that personally on a local level.)
What is an acolyte? What do they do? I haven’t looked much at the links, but I believe I’ve read a lot of that information before. I’ll take a closer look when I get more time.
I agree. Thanks for the thoughtful post. Gotta run.
LDS doctrine teaches that family ties, connections, and associations were meant to continue in heaven, and that those who go to the celestial kingdom effectively live in family relationships. But those family relationships must sealed by priesthood authority for time and eternity for it to continue in heaven. Those LDS who get married in the temple, and their marriage is solemnized not just for time but also for eternity, automatically have any children born to them sealed to them for eternity. Such children are said to be “born in the covenant”. They do not need to be “sealed” again to their parents by a separate temple ordinance. The situation is different for those who have been married by a civil marriage, and have had children born to them under that covenant—whether they be dead or still living. Those people will have to have their marriage “sealed” by a special ordinance in the temple for eternity for it to become binding in heaven, and their children likewise will need to be “sealed” to them in like manner by a separate temple ordinance, for the relationship to continue in heaven. If the couple are still alive, they physically go to the temple with their children to have this ordinance performed for them. If they are dead, it will have to be done for them vicariously by proxy. As I said before, death breaks all such connections between the living and the dead, unless they are solemnized by proper priesthood authority. The following scripture explains it clearly enough:
The rest of your post doesn’t make a lot of sense to me I am afraid. I have no idea what you mean by “visiting”. LDS scripture doesn’t say anything about anybody “visiting” anybody. I don’t know what you mean by that.
Yes, I’m familiar with this book. I would recommend “More wives than One” by Katherine Daynes.
Actually your explanation is MUCH clearer to me - that is, explains that portion of D&C 132 which you quoted (and I have struggled with making charts, plots, etc.) much more simply to me. Remember - I am NOT one of those who say that scripture is easy to understand and that anyone can do it - sometimes I need things explained and you’ve cleared up for me what has been a misunderstanding for 2 1/2 years now,
OK - the ‘visiting’ part… it’s the only term I could think of so let me see if I can give an example, now that I understand the above better. Let’s say my Mom and Dad were sealed in the temple for time and eternity - as a child of that marriage I am sealed to my parents. (And I’m thinking you’ve already answered my question but bear with me!) I, their son, don’t lead a life worthy of the celestial kingdom - the BEST I could hope for is the telestial kingdom (yet I’ve not apostatized to the point of being cast into outer darkness). My Mom and Dad and siblings have all led lives worthy of the celestial kingdom - I’m the only dark sheep, so to speak. In losing the chance to go to the celestial kingdom, do I also lose the chance of seeing my family again?
Yes! That’s it! That’s what I’m asking… I have been on some ferocious pain medications for about six hours now and my brain is just barely functioning at the moment…
The first was already on my Amazon ‘Wish List’ and now the second is, as well. I have been putting off reading reviews of ‘Sacred Loneliness’ (I love the title) until reading the book.
The short answer to that is that you are talking a great load of confused and speculative nonsense. If your aim was to confuse the issue to catch the unwary, guess what, it don’t work.