Polygamy.....I Now Pronounce You Man and Wives

[andrewstx]

Texan - could I ask that you not refer to my prophet as “Joe”? It’s sort of insulting and dismissive. His name was Joseph.

Tangent - but your screen name - Texan? Do you know about, and take pride in, the history of the great state of Texas? How it came to be, and the wars fought, and how it ended up part of the United States? How it almost wasn’t? It’s a pretty fascinating history, involving no little amount of bloodshed, before it came into the union and was willing to entertain phrases like “it was declared illegal” from the tiny new federal government.

Utah (and a lot of the American west) has similar stories. For example, it wasn’t a state until 1896. Before that it was a territory. And before that there was all sorts of odd tinkering and ideas. The Mormons were sick of getting kicked around from place to place, and at one time, Utah (such as it was) was at the brink of war with the United States of America (such as it was).

Texas had a similar story, although much bloodier, because lots of entities wanted to fight over it. With Utah, it was just Mormons and Americans and Native Americans. But with Texas? Well, you use the phrase “it was declared illegal” like that means everything was settled, and Mormons are obviously lawbreakers. There were lots of groups, making all sorts of declarations, in the 1800’s, all over America, for the entire century. Pointing to an anecdote here and there and declaring mormons are lawbreakers? “So much for abiding by the laws of the land”, is about as valid as calling TexanKnight a lawbreaker because of Texan history.

All that said, the history of Utah, including the mormons, the US federal govt, how polygamy finally ended, and how Utah became a state, is fascinating and full of anecdotes anyone can use to justify almost any argument. But to post an anecdote or two on a message board and declare victory, seems a bit premature.

As a Texan I resemble those words. Part of the Texas bloodshed will be accounted to by fact that the Commanches went on killing sprees and the Texans had to defend themselves.

But the largest part is from the Civil War. But not all Texans claimed to own their fellow man. I descend from German settlers who remained “True to the Union” and some were killed for their troubles.

Texas never had polygamy though! Except for a small colony of non-LDS Mormons who lived here for a spell.

But if you examine history you will find that every state had it’s problems, not just Texas and Utah.

 

[lax16]

We believe in the resurrection, and we take that to mean that we’ll have perfected, glorified, eternal physical bodies. I sure hope that fulfilling physical intimacy will be a part of such an existence. Wouldn’t you?

No. I look forward to heaven as being a time for pure love with my fellow man and and a time of endless adoration of the Lord.
I am there to worship God, not to continue “serving” others, including my spouse and children.

Yep - if you believe in a marriage remaining binding throughout the eternities, then there are some logical ramifications to that belief. One of them is that to this day, even though an LDS man can only be married to one living spouse at a time, he can be sealed to more than one. Usually this happens as a result of a death, but it can also be the case in a divorce, because a legal divorce doesn’t automatically nullify a temple sealing.

So the direct answer to your question, is “assuming everyone makes it to heaven, they will be sealed to whoever they’re sealed to on earth.”

I have two sets of Mormon friends that were married in the temple, had kids, were sealed, and then went through very messy divorces. Who will be with who? Who will the kids be sealed to?
When their children marry, won’t they be sealed to their own spouses and children? How can they “be” in two places at the same time?

I understand it is quite easy to point a mocking finger of scorn at these beliefs. Go for it if you wish.

No thanks, it’s not my style.

Actually, in the interests of open transparency and full disclosure, I’ll give you an even more difficult one that challenges us mormons:
Suppose a man and woman are sealed in the temple and the marriage ends through death or divorce but the sealing remains intact. Then suppose the man marries another woman outside of the temple. Our belief indicates that any offspring from that 2nd marriage, would actually be sealed to the man and first wife. I have known more than one couple in this situation.

How do I resolve this? Well, I believe in a God that shares many of the attributes you folks believe in. Perfect love, a perfect combination of mercy and justice. I also believe that actions and choices here on earth can have eternal consequenses, so it’s important to choose wisely. Also, I believe those who make it into God’s presence have, through their own efforts or through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, will not take earthly envies, jealousies, grudges, hate, or anger with them. (In other words, it’s possible for us to rise above a lot of the stuff that bugs us on earth, so it won’t bug us in the afterlife and keep us from God’s presence.) Finally, sealings and cancellations are not permanent, and can change to fit the obvious circumstances people are in.

Do you find Mormonism to be obsessed with marriage and procreation - I do.

Again, such beliefs are easily mocked and scorned. I know Catholics do not share these beliefs. We mormons believe in eternal families, and that belief means we must struggle with logical extremes and consequenses like the stuff above. If you need to make fun of me, I guess you’ll do so.

No Christian faith shares the Mormon belief in eternal marriage because we believe the words of Jesus when he tells us there is no marriage in heaven.
One of the reasons Jesus taught this is because he knew that relationships would be extremely complex. And while we will be judged with how we loved and treated one another while here on earth, heaven will be a place of peace and love.

Make fun of you? Why would I do that?

 

[SteveVH]

We believe in the resurrection, and we take that to mean that we’ll have perfected, glorified, eternal physical bodies. I sure hope that fulfilling physical intimacy will be a part of such an existence. Wouldn’t you?

No. You paint your idea of heaven with human, fleshly desires. The only analogy that comes to mind is this: Imagine that we found a way to transform a fly into a man. We could explain to the fly that his life will be incredibly more fulfilling as a man, with intellect and reason and the ability to experience things the fly can not even imagine. Now the fly’s first question might be “Will I still be able to eat poop? That is one of my favorite things to do and I just can’t imagine a life without it.”

Remember, “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no mind has conceived – the things God has prepared for those who love him.” (1 Cor. 2:9)

Do you not find it strange that the only marriage in heaven ever mentioned in the Bible is the marriage feast of the Lamb? We will have an even more intimate relationship with our spouses and family then we ever had on earth, but it does not include procreation or sexual relations. We will be truly “one” as we share in the very life of God as adopted sons and daughters and what he has planned for us is beyond our capability to grasp.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, the point is that one should never violate the laws of God in favor of the laws of man. If polygamy really was a command from God they should have stuck with it, even if it meant imprisonment or death. That’s what true believers do. The logical conclusion to this line of thought is that the LDS Church should be just fine with abortion since it was made legal in this country.

They are just fine with abortion in case of the mother’s life and health, a Dr. says the fetus is not viable or rape/incest. State laws define abortion for each state. In Utah, the LDS church has influence on the laws. Utah state law matches to the LDS stance on abortion. Which, is better than some states that allow abortion for any reason, or no reason at all.

 

[twopekinguys]

Oh, plenty - especially in Nauvoo. For the regular folks in Illinois, it must have been quite disturbing to watch the mormons show up and grow their town to the largest in Illinois, have the largest Militia in Illinois, with all the talk of polygamy, and Joseph running for president. If I lived in frontier Illinois and witnessed that happening 20 miles away from my town, I’d have serious concerns too.

Hi twopekingguys. My name is NeuroTypical. I was born LDS, went inactive for 6 years around age 18, and am currently seceretary in my Elder’s Quorum. And I know a thing or two about how the early mormons brought some of their hard times on themselves. Sometimes by conscious choice, sometimes by ignorance, sometimes by ignoring wise counsel.

Now you can say “I’ve met one mormon who admitted Smith or the members brought some of their problems on themselves.” (I came to these opinions by reading published stuff written by lots of people, including mormons, btw, so I’m hardly the only one.)

I think my earlier post in this thread confirms it. Mormon history, Texas history, heck, even the history of Rome in the 1800’s, they all are full of fascinating details and endless speculation about reasons and causes.

For example: Did you know that you can make a pretty good case that Mormons are one of the prime reasons that women have the right to vote in the US? Utah was sort of deadlocked for a while on the subject of polygamy, with half the voting population pro-polygamy, and half against. Both sides said “Hey, let’s get the women to vote, and they’ll side with us.” The amendment to the US constitution happened in 1920, but decades before that, each state fought it’s own battle over the issue, with Utah and Idaho as some of the forefront states.

(The women voted with the mormons, btw.)

Anyway, the whole issue of polygamy is indeed difficult for mormons to deal with. You can spend all day citing obvious reasons, and weeks assuming other reasons. At the end of the day, what I tell folks is the only good reason to be mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one. I do, so I am. If I did not, I doubt I’d be LDS - the history and truth claims are just too much for me to swallow otherwise.

Way to bare your testimony. It sure didn’t take long.

I noticed you failed to address the fact that your “prophets” lied, to congress no less, and oh yes, Utah is the main reason women got the vote. (are you serious with that?)

Utah is also the state with the largest users of anti-depressant medication.

Utah is also the state with the largest internet porn subscriptions.

Utah is also the state with the largest number of ponzi/pyramid schemes.

Why didn’t you lay claim to that?

Oh, and by the way, I haven’t met you, so no, I still have not met a mormon that admits to the problems they themselves caused.

 

[lynnettejane]

Petulant whining, Zachary? In my 12 years of paying attention, the only people who call Joseph Smith names like “Joe” or “Joey boy”, are critics who are engaged in attacking some aspect of Joseph. Historically, the armed mobs who were clamoring for blood were shouting about “old Joe and his gold bible”.

Just for the record, when I discuss the Pope, I’ll continue to use the appropriate title Pope Francis, and not “Frankie-boy” or any other such insulting nonsense.

I don’t think it’s petulant whining to request that an atmosphere of civility needs to go both ways.

Thanks NT, I hadn’t realised how disrespectful this must sound, I agree, referring to the Pope as Frankie boy would sound offensive at least to me. I do refer to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young by their initials, but that is simply laziness I suppose, if that offends I will stop.

May I ask how all this sealing business will work when we know, it is historically recorded that women were sealed to different men at the same time ie polyandry. Where even in LDS scripture was that commanded, and if as you hope, sexual relationships are part of salvation and resurrection, who will be having sex with who? Further more how can physical unions bring forth spiritual offspring? And are we really to believe that women want to be eternally pregnant, that is if their spouse calls them forth, or maybe if one spouse doesn,t and she is sealed to another then maybe she has two chances. In the Book of Revelation, the picture that the Evangelist paints is one of eternal worship and praise in the glorious presence of God. Where is this in the Mormon view of heaven, come to that where does our Lord figure at all in your eternity, does he slide off into obscurity having done his bit? Does he start having eternal families of his own, as your early prophets claimed he was a polygamist.

 

[Captain_America]

All this is moot. We’ll have polygamy by 2017.

Why not? Who are you to judge?

What. … the BIBLE?

You cannot be serious!

We WANT polygamy, so we will have it.

that’s really the way the discourse will run on this one. It’ll be here sooner than you know it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

All this is moot. We’ll have polygamy by 2017.

Why not? Who are you to judge?

What. … the BIBLE?

You cannot be serious!

We WANT polygamy, so we will have it.

that’s really the way the discourse will run on this one. It’ll be here sooner than you know it.

Agreed, and not just polygyny, but polyandry and group marriage too.

 

[lax16]

Agreed, and not just polygyny, but polyandry and group marriage too.

And, don’t forget, people who might want to marry their dog, cat, pig, hamster…

 

[lax16]

Way to bare your testimony. It sure didn’t take long.

I noticed you failed to address the fact that your “prophets” lied, to congress no less, and oh yes, Utah is the main reason women got the vote. (are you serious with that?)

Utah is also the state with the largest users of anti-depressant medication.

Utah is also the state with the largest internet porn subscriptions.

Utah is also the state with the largest number of ponzi/pyramid schemes.

Why didn’t you lay claim to that?

Oh, and by the way, I haven’t met you, so no, I still have not met a mormon that admits to the problems they themselves caused.

And, sad to say, Utah is the state with the highest rate of male teenage suicide. It is truly a depressing and horrific situation and has impacted us greatly in the almost 7 years that we have lived here.

 

[SteveVH]

Agreed, and not just polygyny, but polyandry and group marriage too.

You forgot about farm animals. We wouldn’t want to discriminate and feel the wrath of PETA.

 

[lax16]

All this is moot. We’ll have polygamy by 2017.

Why not? Who are you to judge?

What. … the BIBLE?

You cannot be serious!

We WANT polygamy, so we will have it.

that’s really the way the discourse will run on this one. It’ll be here sooner than you know it.

Good point.

Will the Mormons then go back to living earthly in polygamous relationships?

(I know some Mormons still do, but I’m talking about the mainstream ones)

 

[RebeccaJ]

And, don’t forget, people who might want to marry their dog, cat, pig, hamster…

You forgot about farm animals. We wouldn’t want to discriminate and feel the wrath of PETA.

I don’t think that will happen by 2017.

It all comes down to individual rights. If same-sex couples can claim discrimination, so can everyone else that wants to marry outside of one man/one woman. Same-sex marriage, as it is being fought for, is monogamist, and easier to graft into Western legal systems. The complication for polygamy advocates, is in the administration and changing of marital laws and laws surrounding marriage, such as inheritance or insurance, in order to provide strong legal protection to additional spouses and children.

 

[zaffiroborant]

We believe in the resurrection, and we take that to mean that we’ll have perfected, glorified, eternal physical bodies. I sure hope that fulfilling physical intimacy will be a part of such an existence. Wouldn’t you?

Yep - if you believe in a marriage remaining binding throughout the eternities, then there are some logical ramifications to that belief. One of them is that to this day, even though an LDS man can only be married to one living spouse at a time, he can be sealed to more than one. Usually this happens as a result of a death, but it can also be the case in a divorce, because a legal divorce doesn’t automatically nullify a temple sealing.

So the direct answer to your question, is “assuming everyone makes it to heaven, they will be sealed to whoever they’re sealed to on earth.”

I understand it is quite easy to point a mocking finger of scorn at these beliefs. Go for it if you wish.

Actually, in the interests of open transparency and full disclosure, I’ll give you an even more difficult one that challenges us mormons:
Suppose a man and woman are sealed in the temple and the marriage ends through death or divorce but the sealing remains intact. Then suppose the man marries another woman outside of the temple. Our belief indicates that any offspring from that 2nd marriage, would actually be sealed to the man and first wife. I have known more than one couple in this situation.

How do I resolve this? Well, I believe in a God that shares many of the attributes you folks believe in. Perfect love, a perfect combination of mercy and justice. I also believe that actions and choices here on earth can have eternal consequenses, so it’s important to choose wisely. Also, I believe those who make it into God’s presence have, through their own efforts or through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, will not take earthly envies, jealousies, grudges, hate, or anger with them. (In other words, it’s possible for us to rise above a lot of the stuff that bugs us on earth, so it won’t bug us in the afterlife and keep us from God’s presence.) Finally, sealings and cancellations are not permanent, and can change to fit the obvious circumstances people are in.

Again, such beliefs are easily mocked and scorned. I know Catholics do not share these beliefs. We mormons believe in eternal families, and that belief means we must struggle with logical extremes and consequenses like the stuff above. If you need to make fun of me, I guess you’ll do so.

It’s just sad that a man can have physical intimacy with all of the women he loved in life but a woman has to pick just one to love. Even if she was married to and sexually active with two men simultaneously (like Sylvia and Zina were) in this mortal life.

 

[SteveVH]

Good point.

Will the Mormons then go back to living earthly in polygamous relationships?

(I know some Mormons still do, but I’m talking about the mainstream ones)

Makes one wonder how long it will take God to change his mind again after it is made legal by our government. My guess is that it will be record time, like the next day.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Makes one wonder how long it will take God to change his mind again after it is made legal by our government. My guess is that it will be record time, like the next day.

Or the next general conference.

 

[SteveVH]

I don’t think that will happen by 2017.

It all comes down to individual rights. If same-sex couples can claim discrimination, so can everyone else that wants to marry outside of one man/one woman. Same-sex marriage, as it is being fought for, is monogamist, and easier to graft into Western legal systems. The complication for polygamy advocates, is in the administration and changing of marital laws and laws surrounding marriage, such as inheritance or insurance, in order to provide strong legal protection to additional spouses and children.

I’ve never given it much thought, to be honest, but what you say makes a lot of sense.

 

[SteveVH]

Or the next general conference.

Yes, of course.

 

[zaffiroborant]

We believe in the resurrection, and we take that to mean that we’ll have perfected, glorified, eternal physical bodies. I sure hope that fulfilling physical intimacy will be a part of such an existence. Wouldn’t you?

Yep - if you believe in a marriage remaining binding throughout the eternities, then there are some logical ramifications to that belief. One of them is that to this day, even though an LDS man can only be married to one living spouse at a time, he can be sealed to more than one. Usually this happens as a result of a death, but it can also be the case in a divorce, because a legal divorce doesn’t automatically nullify a temple sealing.

So the direct answer to your question, is “assuming everyone makes it to heaven, they will be sealed to whoever they’re sealed to on earth.”

I understand it is quite easy to point a mocking finger of scorn at these beliefs. Go for it if you wish.

Actually, in the interests of open transparency and full disclosure, I’ll give you an even more difficult one that challenges us mormons:
Suppose a man and woman are sealed in the temple and the marriage ends through death or divorce but the sealing remains intact. Then suppose the man marries another woman outside of the temple. Our belief indicates that any offspring from that 2nd marriage, would actually be sealed to the man and first wife. I have known more than one couple in this situation.

How do I resolve this? Well, I believe in a God that shares many of the attributes you folks believe in. Perfect love, a perfect combination of mercy and justice. I also believe that actions and choices here on earth can have eternal consequenses, so it’s important to choose wisely. Also, I believe those who make it into God’s presence have, through their own efforts or through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, will not take earthly envies, jealousies, grudges, hate, or anger with them. (In other words, it’s possible for us to rise above a lot of the stuff that bugs us on earth, so it won’t bug us in the afterlife and keep us from God’s presence.) Finally, sealings and cancellations are not permanent, and can change to fit the obvious circumstances people are in.

Again, such beliefs are easily mocked and scorned. I know Catholics do not share these beliefs. We mormons believe in eternal families, and that belief means we must struggle with logical extremes and consequenses like the stuff above. If you need to make fun of me, I guess you’ll do so.

Catholics believe love and family will be perfected, LDS believe it will be circumscribed. I see Catholic belief as hopeful, filled with promise unknown, LDS as even less than we have now.

 

[TexanKnight]

Oh, plenty - especially in Nauvoo. For the regular folks in Illinois, it must have been quite disturbing to watch the mormons show up and grow their town to the largest in Illinois, have the largest Militia in Illinois, with all the talk of polygamy, and Joseph running for president. If I lived in frontier Illinois and witnessed that happening 20 miles away from my town, I’d have serious concerns too.

Hi twopekingguys. My name is NeuroTypical. I was born LDS, went inactive for 6 years around age 18, and am currently seceretary in my Elder’s Quorum. And I know a thing or two about how the early mormons brought some of their hard times on themselves. Sometimes by conscious choice, sometimes by ignorance, sometimes by ignoring wise counsel.

Now you can say “I’ve met one mormon who admitted Smith or the members brought some of their problems on themselves.” (I came to these opinions by reading published stuff written by lots of people, including mormons, btw, so I’m hardly the only one.)

I think my earlier post in this thread confirms it. Mormon history, Texas history, heck, even the history of Rome in the 1800’s, they all are full of fascinating details and endless speculation about reasons and causes.

For example: Did you know that you can make a pretty good case that Mormons are one of the prime reasons that women have the right to vote in the US? Utah was sort of deadlocked for a while on the subject of polygamy, with half the voting population pro-polygamy, and half against. Both sides said “Hey, let’s get the women to vote, and they’ll side with us.” The amendment to the US constitution happened in 1920, but decades before that, each state fought it’s own battle over the issue, with Utah and Idaho as some of the forefront states.

(The women voted with the mormons, btw.)

Anyway, the whole issue of polygamy is indeed difficult for mormons to deal with. You can spend all day citing obvious reasons, and weeks assuming other reasons. At the end of the day, what I tell folks is the only good reason to be mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one. I do, so I am. If I did not, I doubt I’d be LDS - the history and truth claims are just too much for me to swallow otherwise.

lol…yeah, it had nothing to do with the Mormons declaring war on people in Missouri. It had nothing to do with accusations of people taking other mens’ wives. it had nothing to do with Joe cheating people out of tons of money. It had nothing to do with threats of attacking other towns with their largest militia. It had nothing to do with any of that.

Right.