Speculation on Polygamy...

[_Drifting]

Polygamy is a celestial and eternal principle that is a specified condition for one to be able to live with God.

What's not glamorous about that?

[_ajax18]

Do you think that women would be more inclined to be in polygamous marriages due to social status? (i.e. It is better to be the 4th wife of a Bishop or Stake President than the 1st wife of a Sunday School teacher)

I'd like to know the answer to that. I think it's an economic question as much or more as it is a social status question. Being a mistress doesn't elevate a woman's social status, but I see hoards of willing young and beautiful women choosing older men with lots of cash over younger men who aren't much of anything financially as of now. It's just how human beings are wired. Polygamy is part of all our histories and our evolution, not just Mormons. It very much still exists within all of us (men and women), just like all our other animal desires that we have inherited from our animal ancestors.

While I agree that women in a polygamous family would have more children because polygamy provides built in baby sitting for many working women, one would have to wonder if the higher birth rate would still exceed the number of children lost as adults (boys who weren't good enough for any wife, and girls who didn't want to marry a 50 year old man.)

When the latest wife had her baby, the older kids in the family expressed discontent, commenting that there were already too many kids in the family

Of course. It's the kids who have to do a lot of the extra work involved with raising the younger siblings, and it's the kids who are having their resource (mom) divided down to nothing. But the practice of pressing older children into early motherhood or fatherhood for their younger siblings is done so routinely by women who choose to have large families in our monogamous society that it is very unlikely it would ever be something chosen to be criticized by the current court of public opinion (which is basically the adult female voice of society).

[_Yoda]

..and I don't think that does reflects polygamy in communities currently nor polygamy practiced by BY or by many back in the early Mormon days.

I agree with you, Marg. That's really why I started this discussion. I am curious how the folks here, many who have a significant background in the LDS Church, think that polygamy in a modern LDS Church would function.

Brigham Young most definitely was one of the most selfish and emotionally abusive polygamous husbands I have read about. He played favorites, didn't know the names of most of his children, and did not support his wives financially in a fair way.

However, by the same token, I don't see the modern LDS woman in the same type of position to suffer that type of abuse, or put up with it. Most LDS women today are educated, and have substantially more job skills. Although the economy is tough, I think that everyone would agree, it is much easier for a woman to support herself now than it was in the 19th century. The male dependency is not what it used to be. That, to me, is what makes this "what if" scenario intriguing.

[_Yoda]

Polygamy is a celestial and eternal principle that is a specified condition for one to be able to live with God.

What's not glamorous about that?

I guess this issue is something else to consider as part of this little speculation.

These are comments from FAIR:

In response to a letter "received at the office of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in 1912, Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency wrote:
Question 4: Is plural or celestial marriage essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come?
Answer: Celestial marriage is essential to a fulness of glory in the world to come, as explained in the revelation concerning it; but it is not stated that plural marriage is thus essential. . . . These questions are answered, so that it may not be truthfully claimed that we avoid them. . . . [3]

Conclusion

To obey the Lord's commands in all things is necessary for exaltation. (Our inevitable failure to live perfectly requires the grace of Christ's atonement.) Members of the Church in, say, 1860 who refused to follow the counsel of prophets and apostles put their spiritual standing in jeopardy. Likewise, members who refuse to obey present counsel are at risk.
This does not mean that present members of the Church believe that the principle of plural marriage is false—rather, they believe that it is a principle only to be practiced when the Lord commands it for His purposes.(See Jacob 2:27-30.) There is no doctrine in the Church that states that plural marriage is the norm, or that it is something that will be required for exaltation.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... f_penrose1

(Bold emphasis mine)

If this is correct, and LDS believe that polygamy is accepted, yet not required, would polygamy play a substantial role in modern Mormonism, if polygamy were legal?

[_Yoda]

Of course. It's the kids who have to do a lot of the extra work involved with raising the younger siblings, and it's the kids who are having their resource (mom) divided down to nothing. But the practice of pressing older children into early motherhood or fatherhood for their younger siblings is done so routinely by women who choose to have large families in our monogamous society that it is very unlikely it would ever be something chosen to be criticized by the current court of public opinion (which is basically the adult female voice of society).

I don't really see anything wrong with older siblings assisting in taking care of younger siblings. I actually view it as positive. In my family, we had a unique situation. I was 9 1/2 years older than my little brother, and there were just two of us. Because of the big age difference, I did a lot of babysitting. I didn't resent it at all. It helped me quite a bit when I became a mother myself.

[_sr1030]

Why Me,

We still believe in polygamy. The only ban is here on earth and in fact a man may be sealed to multiple wives still here on earth as long as only one is alive. Ask any faithful LDS widower who has remarried and been sealed to someone else in the temple if he thinks his first wife is no longer his wife.

And your statement about always believing it would be temporary just boggles the mind yet again.

I haven't studied this issue for quite a while, but I do recall some facts about it.

1) There is a canonized "command" to practice polygamy in D&C 132.
2) There is no canonized "command" to discontinue the practice of polygamy, only a canonized "advice" to discontinue the practice. If one was to accept the advice as binding, it would obviously apply to spiritual wifery as well.
3) There is a statement in the DHC (Vol 6 pg 411 I believe), by Joseph Smith where he denies that he practiced polygamy. He also denied "spiritual wifery".
4) The Book of Mormon and the D&C contradict each other on the subject.
5) I have known LDS that are sealed to more than one living woman, due to a divorce.
6) There is an interesting lack of evidence that Joseph Smith had anything to do with D&C 132.

sr

[_Quasimodo]

Maybe this has been brought up earlier (apologies if it has).

How would current LDS women feel about the reinstatement of polygamy in this life?

The world has changed (even in Utah). Would they put up with it?

[_Yoda]

Maybe this has been brought up earlier (apologies if it has).

How would current LDS women feel about the reinstatement of polygamy in this life?

The world has changed (even in Utah). Would they put up with it?

I couldn't.

[_harmony]

Notta chance in hell.

And if it had been still part of the culture of the church when I joined, I wouldn't have. Ever.

And if it is ever reinstated, I'll resign the next day.

[_Yoda]

Notta chance in hell.

And if it had been still part of the culture of the church when I joined, I wouldn't have. Ever.

And if it is ever reinstated, I'll resign the next day.

Tell us how you really feel, Harm! LOL