Mormon/Polygamy question

[Chris-WA]

At any rate, I still think you are confusing the two with regard to what you said about polygamy being the higher law. It’s celestial marriage that’s the higher law. And I still maintain that polygamy is a lesser form of marriage, especially in the context of unrestricted polygamy which was not practised.

I disagree given the context of Section 132. Celestial marriage and polygamy are inseparably tied. It wouldn’t make sense for God to reveal this incredible doctrine of celestial marriage and in the same revelation institute a lesser form of marriage known as polygamy. I agree that polygamy is a lesser form of marriage, but that’s because I’m not Mormon. If you want to assert that polygamy is a lesser form, kudos to you for showing good judgement, but I assure you that among Mormons you are quite alone. From the beginning of polygamy among Mormons, church authorities have never to my knowledge taught that polygamy was a lesser form of marriage. They taught quite the opposite. Now if you can find authoritative LDS statements to the contrary, I will stand to be corrected, but I think you will only find what I’ve been trying to tell you.

And simply from a common sense standpoint, do you really think that your founding prophet, Joseph Smith, and his successors would have practiced polygamy if they thought it was a lesser form of marriage than monogamy? My friend, I think you’ve figured out that polygamy was not such a good idea. The trouble you’re having now is how to reconcile that with your belief that Joseph was a true prophet. My heart goes out to those Mormons who have done their research on polygamy and are now struggling over what to do with that knowledge.

 

[rmcmullan]

I don’t doubt that Joseph Smith was a prophet. And I don’t have a a big problem with the way that the 19th century Mormons practised polygamy–in a limited way. You did see that part in D&C 132 about the first wife giving consent, right? And I don’t have a problem with the first wife witholding her consent.

What does rankle me is the very disrespectful comments about what a perv Joseph Smith was. There’s no attempt at all to understand polygamy in a social context and the numerous mentions of it in OT are buried under the rug. It seems dishonest to me. Maybe it’s just a gut reaction, which is understandable.

I still think you are confusing the temple sealing of families and marriages with plural marriages. The Mormon church fathers gave up polygamy under pressure but they never would have given up the temple rights. Never. Plural marriage is only incidental to the subject of temple sealings.

 

[wademann]

I would think that it would be a higher form of marriage, because you would have to overcome jealousy, selfishness and a host of other earthly problems to make it work, but I can see that it would be beneficial to increasing the souls coming to earth. I think that as far as having mutiple wives in the Celestial Kingdom it would be much easier since all of the things that make it difficult in this life wouldn’t exist. I don’t believe that it would be about looks or sexual relations, these are earthly things and probably quite primitive, when living with Heavenly Father.

 

[majick275]

I don’t doubt that Joseph Smith was a prophet. And I don’t have a a big problem with the way that the 19th century Mormons practised polygamy–in a limited way. You did see that part in D&C 132 about the first wife giving consent, right? And I don’t have a problem with the first wife witholding her consent.

did you see the part where if the first wife withholds her consent the man is freed from the “law of sara” (verse 65) and no longer needs her consent? Did you see the part where if he teaches her this and she rejects then she will be destroyed? (verse 64)

What does rankle me is the very disrespectful comments about what a perv Joseph Smith was.

call them as I see them.

There’s no attempt at all to understand polygamy in a social context and the numerous mentions of it in OT are buried under the rug. It seems dishonest to me. Maybe it’s just a gut reaction, which is understandable.

I dont see any OT references that show it as a good thing. Abram having Hagar “given” to him by Sarai was a disaster. Jacob was deceived by his father in law and there was a lot of strife as the wives competed even to the point of “giving” him their “handmaidens”. His sons were horrible. Only through divine intervention was Joseph able to prosper. David anyone? that was a disaster. Solomon? that didn’t work out very well either. So where in early LDS times do we see a social need or benefit? where do we see any Divine blessing or “higher law” regarding this?

I still think you are confusing the temple sealing of families and marriages with plural marriages. The Mormon church fathers gave up polygamy under pressure but they never would have given up the temple rights. Never. Plural marriage is only incidental to the subject of temple sealings.

I think you are ignoring waht D&C 132 says. You might want to read what LDS prophets who were around back then said about it. How did they interpret it? look at how hard they fought for it. You will find Brigham Young and John Taylor placing it above mere sealing as necessary for exaltation. they said that Jesus practiced it. KInd of makes it hard then to call it a “lesser form of marriage”. D&C 132 calls it a fulfillment of promises from the pre-existence and says it exalts God. Mormon polygamy was NEVER considered a lower form or a necessary hardship. It was always portrayed as a special blessing that would help men to become Gods. Many would not give it up even when federal troops were ready to shut down the whole LDS church. They practiced it in secret, some even split off and formed their own sects that are still practicing it today.

 

[majick275]

I would think that it would be a higher form of marriage, because you would have to overcome jealousy, selfishness and a host of other earthly problems to make it work, but I can see that it would be beneficial to increasing the souls coming to earth. I think that as far as having mutiple wives in the Celestial Kingdom it would be much easier since all of the things that make it difficult in this life wouldn’t exist. I don’t believe that it would be about looks or sexual relations, these are earthly things and probably quite primitive, when living with Heavenly Father.

please tell me why you think it would increase souls coming to earth?

 

[Chris-WA]

I don’t doubt that Joseph Smith was a prophet. And I don’t have a a big problem with the way that the 19th century Mormons practised polygamy–in a limited way. You did see that part in D&C 132 about the first wife giving consent, right? And I don’t have a problem with the first wife witholding her consent.

Yes, I see the part about the consent. But this revelation has a very “interesting” way of defining consent. Notice what happens if the wife does not consent:61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. 64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law. 65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife. In other words, regardless of wether or not the first wife consents, under this law the man is justified to marry another, and the unconsenting first wife gets destroyed for not consenting! So much for consent.

What does rankle me is the very disrespectful comments about what a perv Joseph Smith was.

I happen to believe Joseph invented this revelation in order to legalize his sexual pursuit of other women. He had already been sneaking around behind Emma’s back before announcing this revelation.

There’s no attempt at all to understand polygamy in a social context and the numerous mentions of it in OT are buried under the rug. It seems dishonest to me.

What I think is dishonest is the way LDS try to justify polygamy. The weakest justification is the claim many have made that there were more women then men. This is not true, yet we still hear it. And nobody is burying the mentions of Old Testament polygamy. But nowhere in the Old Testament do we see God commanding someone to be polygamous. This is an assumption written into Section 132 in order to justify polygamy, but you can’t find it in the bible. Like I said before, polygamy always gets those biblical characters in trouble. Its results are often a disaster.

I still think you are confusing the temple sealing of families and marriages with plural marriages. The Mormon church fathers gave up polygamy under pressure but they never would have given up the temple rights. Never. Plural marriage is only incidental to the subject of temple sealings.

I understand that celestial marriage in Mormondom is the highest form of marriage, but polygamy is so closely interwoven with celestial marriage (as to be in the same revelation) that you really can’t separate the two in order to say that polygamy is a lower form of marriage. The Mormon church fathers were never under pressure to give up the temple rights, so we really don’t know what they would have done. The Mormon church “officially” gave up earthly polygamy under pressure from the federal government. The church was going to lose everything if it didn’t. If the government had put the same pressure to give up the temple rights, I suspect the response would have been the same.

 

[Chris-WA]

From Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
65 …and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.
Wait a second! When did God command Abraham to take Hagar as a wife? My bible says that it was Sarah’s idea. One of the worst ideas in the history of the world. Look where it got us today.

 

[Chris-WA]

I dont see any OT references that show it as a good thing. Abram having Hagar “given” to him by Sarai was a disaster. Jacob was deceived by his father in law and there was a lot of strife as the wives competed even to the point of “giving” him their “handmaidens”. His sons were horrible. Only through divine intervention was Joseph able to prosper. David anyone? that was a disaster. Solomon? that didn’t work out very well either.

Thank you for pointing out these specific examples. Mormons always bring up Old Testament polygamy but never show how God supposedly commanded it or how it was a positive institution. The Old Testament contains plenty examples of slavery but I wouldn’t use that as justification to bring slavery back. Show us where God commanded it.

 

[wademann]

please tell me why you think it would increase souls coming to earth?

I should have said more souls to build the Kingdom of God.

 

[murtad]

Talitha, you are wrong.

Did you ignore my posts? How about Matt 19:5?

How about ONE wife for believers and leaders?

1 Tim 3,2

Cor 7:2

Even the ancient Catholic Church, the Chaldeans of Iraq (who speak the natural language of Jesus our Lord) continue to practise monogamy and not polygamy despite 1,000 years under Islamic colonial rule.

And, your false allegations about the Catholic Church are wild and without citations or proof, or credibility.

It is not the Roman Catholic Church, that is for STARTERS.

I will discect the rest of your innacuracies later.

Yes, the words “Roman Catholic Church” is very rude! The first call us “Romans” were the Protestant Anglikan Church. There are many rites within the Catholic Church, such as:

1. Roman (Latin) Rite
2. Melkite (Greek) Rite
3. Armenian Rite
4. Alexandrian (Coptic) Rite
5. Antiochian (Aramaic) Rite (that’s the rite of our Lord)

I have been to a parish of the Chaldean Catholic Church in Baghdad and yes, they do the liturgy in three languages: Aramaic, Arabic and Kurdish.

 

[rmcmullan]

For those of you who think that polygamy and temple sealings are linked, I’d refer you to the Official Declaration which ended the practice scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1

I don’t know how you’ll read it but it seems fairly clear to me that the reason why they gave up the practice was to keep the temples and the sealing power manifested therein.

Again, I repeat, that plural marriage was only incidental to the temple sealings of marriages and families.

 

[murtad]

“My mission” means the mission I served in. I was a missionary in Italy more than 30 years ago. Although I did encounter a few Protestants and Jews, the rest were predominantly Catholic. It was there that I had some very choice experiences with Catholics of all kinds. The Archbishop of Ravenna was a very kind and remarkable man. Catholics were very kind to me even though they knew I was there to convert them. I believe our Church hierarchy has similar feelings of kindness towards Catholics as well. I know that when our Church has raised funds for disaster or famine relief where we didn’t have a distribution network, we turned those funds over to Catholic charities, knowing that they would be appropriate stewards for the relief of suffering.

Mormons and Catholics being Christians should not convert one another. Rather, we should seek to convert our common enemy is Islam, which was founded by the terrible Anti Christ, Muhammad. This person, Muhammad forced converted many Coptic Christians in Egypt to Islam by Arabising them! Yes, right there is no such thing as an Arab Christian as Middle Eastern and North African Christians are Arabised but not Arabs. By modern international human rights laws, such forced “Arabisation” is considered racism and apartheid. So classic Islam, in particular the Ottoman Empire was an apartheid state not much different from South Africa.

I advice you and other LDS missionaries to try to convert French Muslims who are predominantly Arab and if possible de-Arabise these ex-Muslims by getting them to speak/worship in the French language

We, Catholics will be grateful to both LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses if they save France (and the rest of EU) from the Muslim invasion. Read Bat’ Yeor? If not, go on and read it!

 

[majick275]

I should have said more souls to build the Kingdom of God.

yes i understand …but how? There was no shortage of males. available statistics indicate that plural wives had fewer children than women in monogamous households. That being the case it would appear that polygamy actually provides less net population increase.

 

[majick275]

For those of you who think that polygamy and temple sealings are linked, I’d refer you to the Official Declaration which ended the practice scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1

I don’t know how you’ll read it but it seems fairly clear to me that the reason why they gave up the practice was to keep the temples and the sealing power manifested therein.

Again, I repeat, that plural marriage was only incidental to the temple sealings of marriages and families.

yes I read it. Only there are they decoupled for the first time. It appears that monogamy is the lesser form of marriage but that they just aren’t ready for it yet. (much like the united order) Nothing in the OD belittles polygamy in any way and if you look at the careful wording of it he doesn’t even command it to stop. he states he will use his “influence.”

 

[wademann]

yes i understand …but how? There was no shortage of males. available statistics indicate that plural wives had fewer children than women in monogamous households. That being the case it would appear that polygamy actually provides less net population increase.

There might have been a shortage of rightous men.

 

[rmcmullan]

yes I read it. Only there are they decoupled for the first time. It appears that monogamy is the lesser form of marriage but that they just aren’t ready for it yet. (much like the united order) Nothing in the OD belittles polygamy in any way and if you look at the careful wording of it he doesn’t even command it to stop. he states he will use his “influence.”

Okay, I’ll grant you that. And I do like your United Order comparison. It’s in that sense I must refer to polygamy as a lesser form of marriage. If it really is a higher law that we’re not ready for, all we’re likely to get is a degraded form of it which might do more harm than good.

Even though this horse has been dead for a long time, I must emphasize that it’s the temple sealings that are the big deal. They’re the focus of the family and untilmately exaltation. It’s why there’s a emphasis on genealogy. Polygamy is just an arrangement thereof.

Another thing on family arrangments. Lets take this thing out of the OT times and the 19th century and bring it up to at least the Gordon B. Hinkley era. How about the proclamation on the family? lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners

Does this demand a monogamous marriage?

 

[Chris-WA]

Another thing on family arrangments. Lets take this thing out of the OT times and the 19th century and bring it up to at least the Gordon B. Hinkley era. How about the proclamation on the family?
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners
Does this demand a monogamous marriage?

Yes, I would certainly say so. Fathers and mothers cannot be considered equal partners if the marriage is not exclusive to one man and one woman. Polygamy is not the design of God. It is the design of ancient pagan cultures which was adopted by the Israelites.

 

[rmcmullan]

Chris-WA, that was just a rhetorical question. I think not everybody would answer the same as you. I have some more rhetorical questions…

Q. Is it better for a woman to have 100% of a lousy husband or 50% of a faithful husband?

Q. Are all men well suited to marriage?

Q. Is it the duty of a man to marry?

 

[majick275]

I’d like to take a swing at the Catholic position.

1. the Bible addresses this and says if she is married then she is to be an example in the hope that he will eventually come around. HOWEVER, the Bible also tells us that if she is not married she need not seek a husband but rather should seek first to follow Christ. It’s okay if she marries but it’s not required and it should NOT be entered into lightly.
2. Absolutely NOT!

3)Absolutely NOT!

in general I give you the words of Jesus. Read Mathew 19:3-11

 

[Good_Daughter]

I would think that it would be a higher form of marriage, because you would have to overcome jealousy, selfishness and a host of other earthly problems to make it work…

Not if you’re a man!

Another thing I don’t get is this: Mormons promote family, which is wonderful. My young, female visiting missionaries wrinkled their noses at the idea of polygamous marriage, also wonderful. Then they shared with me the “truth” about our purpose in coming to earth which is to marry and have children. That was where I started to doubt their assertions. Earthly marriages may be sealed in temples and last forever according to Mormon teaching. If you do things properly you spend eternity in the highest heaven with your beloved family, (no wonder converts are attracted) what bliss, until your husband’s other wives show up. Is this really what Mormons anticipate? While earthly polygamy is now suspended, faithful Mormons may have to endure it eternally?

Forgive me, if I have misinterpreted LDS theology. I stand open to correction.