Plural Families

[_Seven]

What if a women had two husbands? Could she have both? Wonder why it works only for the guy.

I've wondered about this as well. Let me pose a hypothetical here. I'm really interested in the TBM view and how they came to terms with this one...because I haven't really been able to.

Let's say I marry a young man. We're both in our 20's. We are sealed in the temple. We have no children. He dies in a car accident.

I remarry. I cannot be sealed to my second husband. We can only be married for time. I have children with this second husband, and we live the rest of our days together. These children are sealed for eternity to the first husband who I spent a very small fraction of my life with. It just seems that the second husband is left out in the cold. Why can't both of them be sealed to me?

quote]

I know a few families who have this situation. They say "oh, the Lord will work it all out..." At this time though, the second husband is sealed to nobody and his children belong to the first husband.

[_Gazelam]

In relation to the roles of Men and women in the worlds to come, D&C 132:19 expressly states that Together they are Gods. Same title. Will a second or third wife be less than this? Does her beign a second wife make her less worthy of the marriage covenants than the first? The answer of coarce is No. She will carry the same title as the first wife, and together they carry the same title as the Husband. And this is the same title the Father has. Is this degrading in any way? As to the intimacy issue involved, I do not know how this wil play out. Who is to say how a group of perfected beings will relate to one another?

"It (matter) is brought together, organized, and capacitated to receive knowledge and intelligence, to be enthroned in glory, to be made angels, Gods - beings who will hold control over the elements, and have power by their word to command the creation and redemption of worlds, or to extinguish suns by their breath and disorganize worlds, hurling them back into their chaotic state. This is what you and I are created for." - Brigham Young, John Dehlin 3:356, June 15, 1856


Coggins brings up an interesting point. The way Spirit children are born is unknown. We do know this:

D&C 93:29
Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

There is also the non-canonical scripture quoted by Nibley about the spirits "breatheing in the fragrance" of God and desireing to be like him. Is a spirit child born the same way a physical body is? The spirit has a substance, but is it "organized" the same way? Is this what the Father meant when he told Eve that she would now know what pains of childbirth would be like? Because all she had seen before was a painless birth in the organization of a spirit?

Is it the male responsibility to organize a place for the Spirit children to work out their salvation upon while the female Gods nurture and prepare the Spirits for all that lay before them? I don't know. But I cannot imagine an exalted group of people working out the salvation and exaltation of others in any form of oppresive enviorment.

Gaz

[_Seven]

This is an excellent point, and one that has always intrigued me re the more liberal anti-Mormon critics. Since, in essence, the crux of the sexual revolution was the ennoblement and glorification of serial monogamy over monogamy and traditional concepts of chastity, I've always found it a bit odd that liberal critics of plural marriage would be so exercised about the practice, given that polygamy, is, from a purely behavioral perspective, cutting to the chase.

I'm not much of a liberal, so I'm not sure how this applies to me. I'm opposed to "serial monogamy," perhaps even more so than you are, as I've seen the path of destruction such a lifestyle leaves, particularly for the children of such relationships. As I said, what I'm "exercised" about is the inherent inequality of polygyny. It makes women lower appendages of men, instead of full partners in a relationship. Obviously you see it differently.

It's ironic to me that the liberals in this country are the ones who have no problem with legalizing polygamy and will be the ones to remove the law put on the LDS church stopping the practice. Who would have thought the liberals would be on the LDS side of this doctrine and principle? The people who condemn it are Christian conservatives. (many of whom are Mormons!) It will be the liberals that bring acceptance and tolerance of polygamy into this country, along with the legalization of gay marriage.

Go do a google search on polygamy and you will find many websites and posts that support legalizing polygamy by people who also support adultery and other forms of immoral behavior. Christians recognize polygamy for the abomination that it is.

[_Seven]

What is desirable for me as a woman, to marry a man who is already married or share my husband? What kind of heaven is that for the first wife or the next ones?

If a woman needs a righteous husband and you feel qualified to offer this to other women, wouldn't some of the main character traits of a good man include keeping covenants that were made to the first wife? A man's obedience to the commandment of chastity and all the other commandments that relate to this principle, are some of the most important qualities for most women. That is just one part of the marriage. The companionship formed through monogamy is equally as important as the sexual intimacy and is not possible to have in polygamy. Todd Compton's book is appropriately titled "In Sacred Lonliness." Once those 2 valuable traits are gone in a man, there is no marriage. It's more of an arrangement to raise seed.

[_Mister Scratch]

I

think the fact that the "other way exits" provides much wiggle room. It is much easier to have sexual gratification by having many sexual partners/girlfriends/mistresses than to be plurally married. Obviously sexual gratification, which seems to be the primary antiMormon logic, is not the reason for plural marriage.

This is an excellent point, and one that has always intrigued me re the more liberal anti-Mormon critics. Since, in essence, the crux of the sexual revolution was the ennoblement and glorification of serial monogamy over monogamy and traditional concepts of chastity, I've always found it a bit odd that liberal critics of plural marriage would be so exercised about the practice, given that polygamy, is, from a purely behavioral perspective, cutting to the chase.

This isn't correct. The "crux of the sexual revolution" was to free up choices about sex from the rigid template laid out by the religious right. The religious right describes a sexual world that consists entirely of married men and women having sex in the missionary position. The real "crux of the sexual revolution" was to point out that there is a whole marvelous, beautiful, exotic, diverse, exciting world out there beyond the Church-prescribed method of sex. The neat little trick performed by religion (as anyone who has read Foucault will know) is to not only regulate sex, but to regulate discussion of it. This becomes transparently obvious when one reads the recent fittingly named MADposts by juliann & et. al. Orwell was prescient indeed.

[_Inconceivable]

As to the claims of Joseph's supposed immorality concerning the practice of plural marriage, several generations of competent LDS scholarship on the subject are more than enough to put to rest any fears or doubts the faithful member has in this area, at least as far as I'm concerned. The sheer dearth of documentary historical evidence is the main point here, as are potential problems with the veracity of the sources.

Loran

Several generations of "competent" LDS scholarship... "sheer dearth" of documentary evidence..

No. There has been a literal explosion of documented evidence by many competant scholars in and out of the Mormon church over the past 15 to 20 years. Before the advent of the internet, there was great difficulty in connecting the dots. We don't have to rely on the interpretations of others anymore. It's kind of like what happened when the Bible was finally published for the masses to read.

Keep in mind, that much of what we have now was made available by those within the membership of the church that spent much of their lives perusing historical documents - it was only after publishing their findings that they were senshured, disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

Coggins, I thought very much like you only 2 years ago. You can read my introduction on the NOM board. If you don't want to come to parallel conclusions, I would recommend that you never study anything much deeper than "Truth Restored". You are visiting a very unsafe website for the faithful. I never would have ventured here before taking the red pill.

[_Runtu]

This isn't correct. The "crux of the sexual revolution" was to free up choices about sex from the rigid template laid out by the religious right. The religious right describes a sexual world that consists entirely of married men and women having sex in the missionary position. The real "crux of the sexual revolution" was to point out that there is a whole marvelous, beautiful, exotic, diverse, exciting world out there beyond the Church-prescribed method of sex. The neat little trick performed by religion (as anyone who has read Foucault will know) is to not only regulate sex, but to regulate discussion of it. This becomes transparently obvious when one reads the recent fittingly named MADposts by juliann & et. al. Orwell was prescient indeed.

Well said, Scratch. At a conference at BYU many years ago, I heard Terry Eagleton say that many conservatives envisioned a world in which certain thoughts were literally unthinkable. And you (and Foucault, of course) are correct. Later in the same conference, Eagleton told a story about a man named Joseph. He said that Joseph was a visionary man who dreamed of turning the world on its head and exalting the human family. Joseph led a movement designed to bring low the proud and rich and lift the poor and noble in spirit. He wanted to create an earthly paradise for all. But with time, the movement became more about who did what and who said what, to the point at which it had created a world in which you couldn't wear certain clothes and you couldn't say f*Celestial Kingdom (this of course, elicited gasps from the BYU audience). He said, "I'm speaking, of course, of Joseph Stalin."

[_Jason Bourne]

Thanks, Jason, for an honest response. As a current, active LDS member, how have you resolved your feelings about this, or have you? I ask because I've been trying to do the same thing.

I have not resolved this issue in my mind or heart.

[_Yoda]

Thanks, Jason, for an honest response. As a current, active LDS member, how have you resolved your feelings about this, or have you? I ask because I've been trying to do the same thing.

I have not resolved this issue in my mind or heart.

We're in the same boat, then. ;)

[_Jason Bourne]

What is desirable for me as a woman, to marry a man who is already married or share my husband? What kind of heaven is that for the first wife or the next ones?

Well you see, according to Coggins, you just do not understand, God's ways are not your, you are not spiritually mature because the spiritually mature LDS have no issue with polygamy. And he tell me I have pride and hubris. The posts he makes above are so full of nonsensical a priori assumptions one hardly knows where to begin.

A couple things though for Coggins.

1: You are wrong. About 20% -25% of LDS practiced plural marriage. Get your facts straight is you expect anyone to respect your comments that LDS apologetics have dealt well with all the criticisms.

2: The historical record on polygamy issues starting with Joseph and through the 19th century is abundant and not lacking. Every time you make this specious claim, once again, your credibility drops. I think maybe you have told youself this long enough that maybe you do believe it. It is however abundantly false.

3: You have no right to determine what in the JoD was opinion and what was not anymore then anyone can tell you what you know and don't know. BY taught AG CLEARLY and not ambiguously. How dare you presume to tell him he did not know what he meant. It is clear he did and he believed it and required it as part of the endowment at the St George Temple. You may convince yourself that these strange and uncomfortable teachings where mere aberrations and speculations and whimsical. Fine for you. But it is just not the case at all. This is why I have difficulty taking LDS apologetics seriously. Simple dismissals of very real and difficult issues serves to weaken the defense. Why not deal with it head on?

4: You are not more spiritually mature then others that are questioning things like plural marriage. It may well be the God is leading such persons to have such questions because the things they questions ARE not true and were wrong. If you forcefully tell me I have no right to tell you what you and do not know then you have no right to tell another that they are wrong in where they think personal revelation may be leading them. Pot and kettle dude.