Mormon/Polygamy question

[Good_Daughter]

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

There’s no such thing as 50% of a faithful husband.

 

[rmcmullan]

Good Daughter, are you equating the quality and quantity? If so I think you do have a point. Awhile ago, working Moms used to assuage their consicences with that old saw about “It’s quality time that kids need, not quantity”. But I don’t believe it’s right either. The quality comes after the quantity! Likewise with wife/husband time. That’s why I consider it to be a lesser form of marriage.

On the other hand, not all guys are suited or interested in marriage.

 

[rmcmullan]

…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?

The sealing power of the temple is to seal whatever contracts were made on earth in heaven. I quote again from D&C 132:

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, …] are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

 

[majick275]

I think you miss the point of that verse. Joseph needed to show that women who were married to other men could validly be sealed to him. SO… he reveals that all marriages, contracts, agreements, etc. that aren’t “sealed” are invalid. Guess who was the only one with the authority to “seal”? that’s right…Joseph Smith Jr. who just happened to then seal numerous married women to him. convenient wasn’t it?

Mormons can’t eat their cake and still have it. One the one hand they would have us believe that only they will be with their family in the afterlife. SO if my son and I both end up in the telestial kingdom we have amnesia and don’t remember each other? no. But we don’t have that family relationship? Mormon teaching on the “pre-existence” is that we are all siblings anyway so if our memories are returned then even in the celestial kingdom you know that your great grandpa is really your brother…so what is the significance of the sealings? to take sons and daughters of God and “adopt” them out to their siblings creating long chains of separation between them and their heavenly parents? how is that so great? The sealing is really so that men and their wives (plural) can have eternal offspring to populate other worlds that they “organize” when they become Gods. That is ALL about polygamy and women being no more than “handmaidens” to their husbands. The mormon temple ceremony of today even has men making their covenants to God and being anointed kings and priests to him. (God) while women make their covenants to their husbands (following Eve’s example with Adam) and are anointed to become queens and priestesses to their husbands. The endowment teaches all about the role of numerous men in the creation and governance of this world but NOWHERE is their any mention of Women having a role in any of that.

You see…in reality, all of us who go to heaven will see each other and will remember our loved ones and enjoy being reunited with them. HOWEVER, we will discover a higher form of family when we are taken up by God in the beatific vision and God let’s us experience his divinity. We will NOT become new Gods. we will share his experience as the ONLY God. We do that as his beloved creations and NOT as literal offspring.

 

[wademann]

Not if you’re a man!

Take sex out of the equation, and what you get is that man is to look after the women and children rightously. Just as a bishop looks after his ward, and a priest looks after his parish or Jesus looks after all of us. This is not something to aspire to, but heavy responsibility. Just as nurtureing the children is for women. I would not say it was worth the extra relations, IF there were any.Your reaction is purely earthly.

 

[rmcmullan]

Majick, I think you’ve entirely missed the point of the whole thing. I mean missed it by a mile. The sealing power is noted in many scriptures previous to D&C 132 and is exactly what it says there, the power to seal in heaven what is given on earth. It was also given to Elijah and Nephi and so on and so on. You’ve placed it in an exclusively historical context, assigned Joseph Smith only the darkest of intentions and threw out every ounce of eternal meaning. And, needless to say, I don’t agree with your analysis.

Wademann, I’d like to build on what you said. The concept of duty of men to marry is a real thing in Mormondom. One of the best times I had at General Priesthood was when I went with a single friend and Ezra Taft Benson spent twenty minutes addressing the young (male) adults of their duty to mary. Ah, good times. And that wasn’t just a one time thing, the topic comes up frequently. My own sons have heard the message many times.

When people say the Mormons are a family church, it’s really true. You could consider polygamy the super-sized family and the temple the way to keep them intact (my personal opinion only) . From D&C 132 comes a very pro family philosophy both in theory and in practice.

 

[rmcmullan]

Along with the question “Doea a man have a duty to marry?” I have to ask “Does a man and wife have a duty to rear children?” Again, in Mormondom, the answer is an emphatic yes. Maybe this enthusiasm for marriage and children is reflected in the polygamy thing but I think it’s the other way around. One of the first commandments given to man was to “Go forth and multiply” and if it’s been rescinded, no one told me!

Catholics and Mormons are somewhat unique in that we’re the only ones left that support large families (>2!) and discourage birth control. And hold abortion as a grave sin.

 

[majick275]

Majick, I think you’ve entirely missed the point of the whole thing. I mean missed it by a mile. The sealing power is noted in many scriptures previous to D&C 132 and is exactly what it says there, the power to seal in heaven what is given on earth. It was also given to Elijah and Nephi and so on and so on. You’ve placed it in an exclusively historical context, assigned Joseph Smith only the darkest of intentions and threw out every ounce of eternal meaning. And, needless to say, I don’t agree with your analysis.

I was addressing D&C 132 only. That is because that is where sealing is applied to marriage. I think the facts bear out my analysis. Why would Joseph be so explicit in his nullification of all marriages, etc. that weren’t sealed? why would he emphasize that only he could seal? it was very practical, he was addressing those people at that time for his reasons. This wasn’t anything like any other scriptures. this was making polygamy into something that makes men into gods and glorifies our god in the process. It is all about having a harem to populate other worlds with. I cannot comprehend a greater blasphemy.

as to the rest, I think you are too quick to ignore Jesus words in Matt. 19 and Paul’s further teachings on that topic. ADAM was commanded to be fruitful and multiply. NOT the rest of us. There is NO command in the bible for everyone to marry. For those who are CALLED to marriage it has strict rules. NO polygamy, NO divorce. But don’t dismiss the call to celibacy that Jesus and Paul speak of. They tell us how it builds up the kingdom of God.

 

[Allweather]

Take sex out of the equation, and what you get is that man is to look after the women and children rightously. Just as a bishop looks after his ward, and a priest looks after his parish or Jesus looks after all of us. This is not something to aspire to, but heavy responsibility. Just as nurtureing the children is for women. I would not say it was worth the extra relations, IF there were any.Your reaction is purely earthly.

So, you’re claiming that polygamous husbands DON’T and NEVER DID have any sex with their plurality of wives???

 

[Allweather]

Catholics and Mormons are somewhat unique in that we’re the only ones left that support large families (>2!) and discourage birth control. And hold abortion as a grave sin.

Yes, it does seem that Mormons like to compare their religion to Catholicism, but the similarities are actually very few, once you examine things at the nuts and bolts level.

For instance, Catholics would never buy into reasonings that allowed a man to marry multiple women, while Mormons, even 100 years after their church officially proscribed the practice, still want to defend polygamy as being something ordained by God in the latter days, that is, after 1850-something (but practiced in secret and denied for about a decade before that).

Remember, Moslems have big families too. In fact, there are more similarities between Mormons and Moslems than there are between Mormons and Catholics.

 

[wademann]

So, you’re claiming that polygamous husbands DON’T and NEVER DID have any sex with their plurality of wives???

No, what I’m saying is just like monogomous marriages, sometimes it depends on the people involved, whether it happens or not. To lead your family rightously means, you must lead your family without coercion or intimidation, to treat everyone with love, caring and respect and to treat your wife or wives as equals. If you don’t, then you are not being rightous. Did this or does this always happen? No! Whether monogamous or polygamas, man has weaknesses that we need to constantly moniter. It seems that the first thing the critics want to point to is the bedroom. I am just saying that, that is not what drove polygamy, in the early church, and it would not be worth all the work and responsibility just to have additional sex with mutiple partners. If that’s all you really wanted, you could do it without getting married and without all the work.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Take sex out of the equation, and what you get is that man is to look after the women and children rightously. Just as a bishop looks after his ward, and a priest looks after his parish or Jesus looks after all of us. This is not something to aspire to, but heavy responsibility. Just as nurtureing the children is for women. I would not say it was worth the extra relations, IF there were any.Your reaction is purely earthly.

Take sex out of the equation and there are no children for the man to look after.

I believe you are saying polygamy is about duty, not sexual pleasure. Our Heavenly Father sometimes calls us to heavy responsibility. That’s fine and I do aspire to please him by living my life as a follower of Jesus Christ, a wife and a mother. It’s really hard sometimes but worth every struggle. If you are a faithful Mormon, you probably already know what I mean. What some posters on this thread are saying though is that of all the struggles we may be given by God, it is arguable polygamy is not one of them.

I don’t like to presume that most followers of polygamy are in it for the sex, they may have had good intentions, but that doesn’t mean they have proper revelation or teaching, nor does it make the practice of polygamy acceptable.

My reaction is partly earthly as I am on the earth and greatly concerned with its inhabitants and their welfare (both temporal and spiritual) as they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Good Daughter, are you equating the quality and quantity? If so I think you do have a point. Awhile ago, working Moms used to assuage their consicences with that old saw about “It’s quality time that kids need, not quantity”. But I don’t believe it’s right either. The quality comes after the quantity! Likewise with wife/husband time. That’s why I consider it to be a lesser form of marriage.

On the other hand, not all guys are suited or interested in marriage.

It’s tough to separate quality and quantity when it comes to relationships, isn’t it? I totally agree with your working Moms analogy. It’s one of the reasons I chose to stay at home. (All due respect to working Moms, I know and love many.)

I have a couple questions for you: First, why even bother with a lesser form of marriage when we have clear instructions on the way God intended us to marry (…the two of them become one body. Gen 2:24)? Second, as a Mormon, what do you mean that not all guys are suited or interested in marriage? A few posts later, you seemed to say marriage is a universal call.

Also, I’m still wondering, according to Mormon teaching, can a man have more than one wife in heaven even if he only had one wife on earth?

I really appreciate all Mormons (and former Mormons) who post charitably on CAF. I may not agree with some LDS theology but it certainly helps non-Mormons in their understanding of what the Church teaches. Thank you for such thoughtful and often well-researched posts.

 

[rmcmullan]

Majick, the argue against celibacy is the same as the one against homosexuality: if everyone practiced for a generation, the world would be empty and Satan would rejoice. If everyone praticed polygamy (so much as it’s possible and still have everyone married), the end result would be that every women would be married and there’d be a lot of babies!

So far as I know, the Catholics have restricted celibacy to the Priesthood and Nuns. I suppose they had their reasons for doing this but this is almost the opposite of the Mormon philosophy. They want their best and brightest to be family men and serving God at the same time. Since you were in a bishopric, you know how those two can conflict, but that’s another discussiion.

Good Daughter, I frankly do have some problems with polygamy and I don’t see why the early Mormons pushed it. Every true blue Mormon at terms has to come to grip with it and I’ve tried to lay out my thinking on the matter as best as I can. Some people (maybe who’ve been posting here!) have decided that it’s incompatible with Christian life and have left the Mormon church. If I believed 1/100 of the crazy things Joseph Smith was accused of, I’d leave too! But I very much agree with the philosophy and teachings the pratice was based on, even if I’m not that crazy about the practice itself.

To tell you the truth, if I had to marry another woman (in addition to my current wife whom I love very much), I would have to think of it as a heavy responsibility and I would welcome it and fear it at the same time. Sort of like being in the Bishopric or any other heavy responsibility. On the other hand, every responsibility brings some rewards and since I generally like married life, that part would be nice. But failure would be so much easier!

As for your question about what happens in heaven: I don’t know what happens up there! All we’re told is that we can keep our children and husband/wife (from this world) sealed together throughout time and eternity.

 

[Allweather]

No, what I’m saying is just like monogomous marriages, sometimes it depends on the people involved, whether it happens or not. **To lead your family rightously means, you must lead your family without coercion or intimidation, to treat everyone with love, caring and respect and to treat your wife or wives as equals. If you don’t, then you are not being rightous. **Did this or does this always happen? No! Whether monogamous or polygamas, man has weaknesses that we need to constantly moniter. It seems that the first thing the critics want to point to is the bedroom. I am just saying that, that is not what drove polygamy, in the early church, and it would not be worth all the work and responsibility just to have additional sex with mutiple partners. If that’s all you really wanted, you could do it without getting married and without all the work.

So, is it “righteous” for a man to propose to his wife that he take on additional wives, and then if she refuses, he put her away and proceed with the additional wives anyway?

Correct me if I’m wrong about the D&C teaching on this point.

As for what you say about sex not being the driving force behind polygamy, that is truly debatable, given the nature of man, and his carnal tendency to prefer multiple sex partners, compared with that of a woman, and her tendency to nest-build with a single partner. Furthermore, the institutionalized form of plural marriage gave the Mormon men an “out” in terms of adultery. Since these marriages were being done according to a “revealed” rule that specifically stated them NOT to be adulterous, which was necessary given the 1800 years of consistent Christian teaching on this matter, they were then free to have sex or not have sex, without offending anyone but their poor first wives, who either accepted it or found themselves on the outside looking in.

However, I agree that sex may not necessarily have been THE driving force in every situation. Some plural wives may’ve been obtained after the first wife realized that she could have a “helpmate” in the home at the small cost of allowing her husband to occasionally fondle the little girl overnight, from time to time, as the urge came to him. Some plural wives were undoubtedly farmed out as laborers in order to bring money into the home. If you just use your head a little, you can envision a whole raft of possibilities that this plural marriage arrangement would allow, many of them not far from being defined as slavery.

I think your claims about Mormon polygamy being a difficult row to hoe, would be a lot more believable if there were also lots of plural marriages in which a single woman had several husbands. But, this would run against the grain of the natural, carnal man. Since Mormon polygamy runs WITH the grain of natural, carnal man, it must be understood to be an accomodation with carnality, rather than a crucifixion of the flesh, which is the way Catholicism looks at this carnal nature of man. Catholicism recognizes that the fallen nature of man gives him over to sinful lusts, arrogance, ambition, and much more. These things are to be crucified, not elevated onto a heavenly platform.

 

[majick275]

Majick, the argue against celibacy is the same as the one against homosexuality: if everyone practiced for a generation, the world would be empty and Satan would rejoice.

I don’t know that’s necessarily true. Once the “world ends” God wins and Satan is bound forever.

If everyone praticed polygamy (so much as it’s possible and still have everyone married), the end result would be that every women would be married and there’d be a lot of babies!

I don’t think that’s necessarily true either and I could make the case that everyone would be living in sin and Satan would rejoice.

So far as I know, the Catholics have restricted celibacy to the Priesthood and Nuns.

not exactly. many Catholic lay people choose celibacy as a lifestyle based on the the teachings of Jesus and Paul. It IS a choice though and not a requirement.

I suppose they had their reasons for doing this but this is almost the opposite of the Mormon philosophy. They want their best and brightest to be family men and serving God at the same time. Since you were in a bishopric, you know how those two can conflict, but that’s another discussiion.

yes it is an opportunity for conflict as the Bible teaches us. Full time dedicated clergy provides benefits that should not be ignored.

Good Daughter, I frankly do have some problems with polygamy and I don’t see why the early Mormons pushed it. Every true blue Mormon at terms has to come to grip with it and I’ve tried to lay out my thinking on the matter as best as I can. Some people (maybe who’ve been posting here!) have decided that it’s incompatible with Christian life and have left the Mormon church. If I believed 1/100 of the crazy things Joseph Smith was accused of, I’d leave too! But I very much agree with the philosophy and teachings the pratice was based on, even if I’m not that crazy about the practice itself.

we’re not talking about the “crazy things” Joseph was accused of we are talking about what was written in scripture and practiced as binding doctrine that still exists today. (with the restriction that it can’t be practiced with living spouses today)

To tell you the truth, if I had to marry another woman (in addition to my current wife whom I love very much), I would have to think of it as a heavy responsibility and I would welcome it and fear it at the same time. Sort of like being in the Bishopric or any other heavy responsibility. On the other hand, every responsibility brings some rewards and since I generally like married life, that part would be nice. But failure would be so much easier!

I can appreciate that

As for your question about what happens in heaven: I don’t know what happens up there! All we’re told is that we can keep our children and husband/wife (from this world) sealed together throughout time and eternity.

well that’s not exactly the whole LDS teaching on that. It IS current doctrine that if a man is sealed to a spouse and outlives her and is sealed to another that he will be sealed to both in the Celestial kingdom (assuming all of them make it there) It is also doctrine that all valid sealings in the past will be in effect and thus all polygamists who make it to exaltation will have all of their sealed spouses with them. It is also doctrine that all worthy women who through no fault of their own are not sealed to a worthy spouse will be given to an exalted man in the celestial kingdom.

 

[Allweather]

To tell you the truth, if I had to marry another woman (in addition to my current wife whom I love very much), I would have to think of it as a heavy responsibility and I would welcome it and fear it at the same time. Sort of like being in the Bishopric or any other heavy responsibility. On the other hand, every responsibility brings some rewards and since I generally like married life, that part would be nice. But failure would be so much easier!

Well, you have the United States of America to thank for the discontinuance of plural marriage. If not for the intention of the American people to proceed militarily and legally against the LDS church in Utah, to destroy it, if necessary, surely the prophet would not have needed to find a new revelation from God advising an end be put to plural marriage. I’m sure you’re very relieved about this!

But, let’s look more realistically at this “heavy responsibility” point that you raise. Multiple wives lighten the burden, not increase it. Young women, with little or no education, or hope to get it, can be farmed out to work in menial jobs, like laundries, or housekeepers, and though they may not make a lot of money, the accumulation of three or four of them working 12-hour days 6 or 7 days a week can bring in quite a lot of money. Lots of babies would be made as hubby got cuddly from day to day with any he chose to join up with, and then the girls could take turns with child care. Maybe some educated women would take a liking to plural marriage, and have jobs that make a lot of money, but mostly it seems that the plural wives we’ve seen in modern fundamentalist sects are uneducated, somewhat homely, and probably just happy to have a place to live. My guess is, though, that these young girls know full well that they’d better not get sick, or start getting lazy, because as easy as it was to join the household, that’s how easy it’d be for them to find themselves on welfare.

 

[rmcmullan]

This is very speculative but I would consider most of those situations that you mentioned as having failed! Turning women into minions of unskilled laborers and toys sounds like a huge failure.

 

[Allweather]

This is very speculative but I would consider most of those situations that you mentioned as having failed! Turning women into minions of unskilled laborers and toys sounds like a huge failure.

Well, sure it is! And polygamy makes this type of situation more likely. Even in conventional marriages, women have complained for a long time about being reduced to servants. During the 19th century in the United States, there were few options for women. Even educated women didn’t have many options outside the home. Alma referred to this in an earlier thread when he defended Mormon polygamy along the lines of it having provided unattached women with an opportunity to have a “husband” which was the highest goal to which a woman was thought to aspire. Alma also commented on how Mormon polygamy kept many Mormon women out of prostitution and, as I recall, offered it as a solution to prostitution in general.

Actually, I do see a correspondence between polygamy and a type of prostitution set-up: The pimp controls a group of women. The women are all uneducated, not very pretty, have low self-esteem. They do all the work, the pimp gets most of the money. They have no legal standing, so if the pimp gets rough, there’s not much they can do except run away. Now, before you get your dander up, I’m not calling polygamous wives prostitutes, I’m just saying there is a correspondence that I perceive in the set-ups. Based on what I’ve seen on a couple of television documentaries about fundamentalist/polygamous Mormons in Arizona, I have noticed that these girls do not seem like the types who turned down careers at Microsoft in favor of marrying a fat high school teacher in order to bear his children and help first wife clean the house.

 

[DLC]

God never permitted poligamy. Man sinned by having more than one wife and the result was that those many wives led their men astray from the Word of God and His commandments.
Deut 17:17
17 " He shall not multiply wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away; nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself.
NASU