Not another polygamy thread! (sigh)

[mike_uk]

I like what wanderer said. :)

By the tone of some of the messages, it sometimes feels more like an arguement board...or a debate board...may the most articulately argumentative person win!

I know you are just mesing around but Im not out to win any arguemnts and if I was I could never win a damned thing on my articulate writing becasue I dont have the skills or the ability to do it as you can tell from my posts.

[Vort]

Keep saying this? Wild exageration from you there Vort. Its the 1st time I have ever said it and a rather pontless reply from you tbh.

I didn't say it was you each time, Mike. No need to be defensive. It just seems I have seen people say this same type of thing three or four times just in the last week or so. I'm not quite grasping why people seem to feel the need to reaffirm that this is indeed a discussion board, and that they are indeed free to express their opinion.

[bytor2112]

Does someone have the reference to this? I apparently missed this part of Sunday school...was probably sleeping through it.

Plural marriage is still practiced today in that a man may be sealed to more than one woman in this life. What do you think.......all of the Saints who practiced plural marriage and were sealed in Temples will not be married in the eternities? If that is this case, why then were they sealed for time and eternity? Of course, there will be plural marriage in eternity. Will every worthy Priesthood holder have more than one eternal companion...maybe. I submit that we have no concept of what we will have progressed to in the Eternal realms and our understanding of things like this will be so much different.

[Vort]

I submit that we have no concept of what we will have progressed to in the Eternal realms

I would suggest that we do indeed have some concept of it, imprecise though it may be, based on the principle that our lives and experiences here are a reflection of our lives and experiences in eternity. I suspect that eternal life, whatever it entails, will be very familiar to us.

and our understanding of things like this will be so much different.

This I agree with.

[funkymonkey]

I thought they stopped doing "multiple sealings" about 10 years ago. Am I wrong?

I'd still like some articles or something if anyone has em.

[bytor2112]

I would suggest that we do indeed have some concept of it, imprecise though it may be, based on the principle that our lives and experiences here are a reflection of our lives and experiences in eternity. I suspect that eternal life, whatever it entails, will be very familiar to us.

This I agree with.

Reflection....as in mirror? Man, I hope not.

[bytor2112]

I thought they stopped doing "multiple sealings" about 10 years ago. Am I wrong?

I'd still like some articles or something if anyone has em.

I am pretty sure that Elder Russell M. Nelson was sealed in the Temple recently to his second wife.......

[mike_uk]

I didn't say it was you each time, Mike. No need to be defensive. It just seems I have seen people say this same type of thing three or four times just in the last week or so. I'm not quite grasping why people seem to feel the need to reaffirm that this is indeed a discussion board, and that they are indeed free to express their opinion.

Sorry, it appeared the finger was pointed my way. Sorry, didnt mean to sound defenseive.

[Maya]

this was a very interesting thread ...the first pages... taking off again like usually thowards the stupid discusition!

About marriage I remeber I once found out the marriage ages inthose days in JS area there it was 14 for the boy and 12 for a girl. A good frend of mine was married to her husband at the age of 12... not then LDS... so it is still happening... those that have a big problem with that go fight against it there where it STILL happens!

A girl of 14 in those days was already a young woman who had to take care of herself unlike these days! They were more cabable of taking care of a family than most girls are today at the age of 25!

I also recall from somewhere that JS really TOLD Emma, but because of her attitude he was plain afraid of his wife.

I also have a big problem about someone hinting that JS would have had ... with other women.. so WHERE are these other wifes kids!! At leas he was not unable to get kids as he had 11 with Emma, so where are the rest. Dna proves from the ones he was said to be father to have proven he was not (except oen I dont know yet if the last one is searched). Someone once told me teh other wifes used something not to get pregnant... why they were leagaly married. My assumption they were ... is the word platonic marriages.... anyway marriages only on paper. This we can not say about BY who was very much against plural marriage in teh begining, but was very faithfull at the end.

I dont know why my husband claims that he has enough with me and would not take an other wife unless he had to.... cant really understand why??!!

[Guest ceeboo]

No....I was just suggesting that the age thing, though creepy, would still be legal in some states.

In the LDS faith, plural marriage will indeed be a practice in the eternal worlds. If my wife were to predecease me, I could remarry and be sealed for time and eternity to another woman and still be with my first wife in the Eternal worlds, just as those who openly practiced plural marriage and had their marriages sealed in the Temple.

With regard to the whole issue, I would just say to quote a favorite Apostle of mine..." the things of God can only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit." I know that these things are true because the Spirit has taught me that it is so and has bore witness to my spirit that it is indeed from our Heavenly Father.

Hi bytor,

Are you saying that the " JS thing " is also creepy ??

I ( Catholic ) would appreciate any LDS doctrine or LDS prophet teachings to support your claim about " plural marriage will indded be a practice in eternal worlds ".

I have no reply for your " you know it's true because you know it from the spirit "

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me :)

God bless,

Carl

[Elphaba]

I thought they stopped doing "multiple sealings" about 10 years ago. Am I wrong?

I'd still like some articles or something if anyone has em.

That would be the 1890 Manifesto, which many members did follow, some with relief. However, others did not see it as from God at all, given what they had been taught for almost 50 years. Thus, we have the compounds, such as the one in Texas, that are often rife with corruption.

However, the 1904 Manifesto did stop the practice of civil polygamy in the SLC-based Church, permanently. By that, I mean no one could live in polygamy in a civil sense. However, men can still marry/be sealed to, two or more women at atime.

Additionally, if a LDS woman has been civilly married to one or more men, but has not been sealed to any of them, she is then sealed to all of them by proxy (if her name has been submitted by a family member). That way she can choose which man to spend eternity with.

Elphaba

[funkymonkey]

I was looking for articles to verify these plural marriage / sealings information but haven't found anything yet. Until then sorry but I'm taking this "hearsay" with a grain of salt.

But I did find this little excerpt in a talk given by Dallin H Oaks, regarding timing and how important it is for the Lord...

"People who do not accept continuing revelation sometimes get into trouble by doing things too soon or too late or too long. The practice of plural marriage is an example."

Thought there was quite a bit of wisdom in that quote.

[Truegrits]

Additionally, if a LDS woman has been civilly married to one or more men, but has not been sealed to any of them, she is then sealed to all of them by proxy (if her name has been submitted by a family member). That way she can choose which man to spend eternity with.

Elphaba

She is sealed to all? Is that the only option? Why not just the one she was married to at death?

[Elphaba]

She is sealed to all? Is that the only option? Why not just the one she was married to at death?

Because he may not be the man she loved best. If this were true, she could then choose him, and if he loved her as well, they could be sealed for eternity to one another.

For example, she may believe that one of them was much more spiritual than another; thus, he would be able to take her to the Celestial Kingdom where her last husband could not.

Or she might decide she'd rather stay married to her last husband, as you suggested; she would be technically married to him for all of his life. Of course, if she has been sealed to him on earth, she will not have to be sealed to him again on earth.

There are a number of reasons a women in the Church might choose a different spouse, once she has passed on.

Elphaba

[bytor2112]

Hi bytor,

Are you saying that the " JS thing " is also creepy ??

I ( Catholic ) would appreciate any LDS doctrine or LDS prophet teachings to support your claim about " plural marriage will indded be a practice in eternal worlds ".

I have no reply for your " you know it's true because you know it from the spirit "

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me :)

God bless,

Carl

Ceeboo,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints practiced plural marriage once upon a time.......as you know. Today a man may be sealed to more than one woman. For example if my wife predeceases me, I can be sealed to another in this life.

Those early Saints, members and Prophets and Apostles who practiced plural marriage and were sealed to these women and had children with them will be united with them as families in the eternal worlds. Else why would they have been sealed to them to begin with..........??

As for the JS thing being creepy.......no comment.

The Holy Spirit testifies of truth....... I can't deny what I have experienced.

[Truegrits]

There are a number of reasons a women in the Church might choose a different spouse, once she has passed on.

Everyone I have asked/talked to about this, has said Don't worry, it will all be taken care of.

I have made the same "mistake" twice. (I know, not very bright, huh?)

I married two non-LDS. I know that my daughter can have me sealed after my death...but I have always thought that it could be to only one.

And if the one (both ?) that I get sealed to, do not accept the Gospel, then what? I know we do not know everything, but I would like to have some idea of what to expect...

[pam]

Everyone I have asked/talked to about this, has said Don't worry, it will all be taken care of.

I have made the same "mistake" twice. (I know, not very bright, huh?)

I married two non-LDS. I know that my daughter can have me sealed after my death...but I have always thought that it could be to only one.

And if the one (both ?) that I get sealed to, do not accept the Gospel, then what? I know we do not know everything, but I would like to have some idea of what to expect...

Don't worry, it will all be taken care of.

[Guest ceeboo]

Don't worry, it will all be taken care of.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL hahahahahahahaha

I am seriously laughing out loud

[pam]

Sorry my dear TG...I truly couldn't resist. Wait...yes I could but I didn't!!!!!

[Truegrits]

I'm just waiting for ya'll to stop laughing...to catch your breath...

[bytor2112]

I was looking for articles to verify these plural marriage / sealings information but haven't found anything yet. Until then sorry but I'm taking this "hearsay" with a grain of salt.

But I did find this little excerpt in a talk given by Dallin H Oaks, regarding timing and how important it is for the Lord...

"People who do not accept continuing revelation sometimes get into trouble by doing things too soon or too late or too long. The practice of plural marriage is an example."

Thought there was quite a bit of wisdom in that quote.

Are you doubting that members of the church have been sealed to more than one woman? Surely not........that is pretty well known. One of the controversies surrounding Joseph was whether his plural marriages were Celestial marriages or were they also consumated. Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants states very plainly, "And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens." This would apply to ALL marriages sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise in the Temple....including plural marriages.

Families are forever......including the ones that we don't understand. :)

[pam]

I'm just waiting for ya'll to stop laughing...to catch your breath...

You are the respiratory therapist...you help us with breathing. Sheesh.

[Misshalfway]

I think there was a learning curve in the early days of the church with regards to sealings. They seemed to have fumbled a bit in their desire to participate and the newness of all of these ideas and ordinances. I think it has all been ironed out.

The best part of the story is knowing that we can be together in our dearest familial relationships in the here-after. We can be sealed to our sweethearts and our children. And for those whose path is a little twisty, God will work it all out. I have no way of knowing how....but we will all be happy and I believe our agency will play a big role.

[funkymonkey]

I am not doubting that plural marriage happened...and have no problem with it in the cases that it was carried out correctly. If JS had multiple wives doesn't bother me...that was his specific commandment.

I am just curious to find some information regarding the current practices of sealings, to help separate Mormon lore from Mormon doctrine.

Eh, it doesn't matter anyway. I'm not OK with it and I don't think I'm required to be OK with it right now. Personal truth will come in time.

Since I can't find any real documentation on it, then the particulars probably really aren't appropriate for this forum/audience anyway.

Edited August 14, 2008 by funkymonkey

[Elphaba]

#1) Rough Stone Rolling. The author is a Stake Patriarch and very faithful.

He is also Gouverneur Morris Professor of History, Emeritus, at Columbia University, so RSR is more than just an amateur historians‘ book. Bushman is a highly qualified historian, with whom. I went to Church in the early ‘70s. (Okay, I just needed to name drop a bit.)

#2) Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith. Fantastic read. I completely agree. This is probably my number one book I recommend to everyone to read--or at least it was until Rough Stone Rolling showed up.

However, I am surprised you think she knew about Joseph's early polygamy, after having read MEEHS. I'll have to pick the book up again, but it was impression she did not know, as evidenced by Joseph’s wives finding ways to stay out of Emma’s way. (The incident on the stairs with Eliza intimates a very deep jealousy, and I rooted for Emma!. )

In fact, the Lord didn’t command her to allow the practice for a long time, as evidenced by Joseph’s marriages to the Dow sisters.. Unfortunately, Emma did not know Joseph had already married them.

There is also the problem that many of Joseph’s wives were jealous of Emma, though she did not know why, at least not for a while yet. It confused her until she was commanded by God to obey and practice polygamy.

I’ll have to go back and read the book. Maybe I’m confusing incidents.

#3) In Sacred Loneliness. By Todd Compton. He's not very inspiring, and can't stand polygamy (so he tosses in some really off-the-mark personal editorial comments IMO) BUT -- the hard data he pulled together for this book is exceptional. I did not get the impression he couldn't stand polygamy; rather, he couldn't stand how it affected many of Joseph's wives, especially after his death. Some of them led extremely lonely lives; in addition, many people, especially women, believed these women thought themselves better than others, because they were spiritually, and civilly, married to Joseph, though they received very little attention from him, and of course, none after he died..

In thinking about it, I can see why you perceive Compton’s dislike of polygamy, as he did believe monogamy made couples much happier.

But I felt like he condemned the isolation of the wives, not the practice itself. I think this was true for many wives, and not true of others. I do agree most of them were unhappy.

I also really enjoyed Richard Van Wagoner's book “Mormon Polygamy, a History.” Obviously it used a different approach, focusing on the Church’s practice of polygamy itself, and not on specific people who participated in it. But I learned a lot about the Church’s history of polygamy, and it was a great read.

#4) Fawn Brodie??? I think not. It was the best book of its kind when written, even with her mind-reading. But it's garbage compared to the 3 books listed above. I find this book so polarizing, I don‘t get it. I enjoyed it immensely, and admit it was the first book about Joseph’s practice of polygamy I had ever read. Nevertheless, it did not make me think less of Joseph because of his polygamy. There were other things that bothered me more, but ultimately I don’t think they were that important.

I also think it is unfair to dismiss Brodie’s writing, because as you said, because hers was the first book that took a serious look at Joseph's life. In fact, she was not faith-promoting in her biography (at least, not since B.H. Roberts‘ attempts). She took her book seriously, and for the time, she did a very good job of writing a book that no one wanted her to write. This included her uncle, David O. Mckay.

I agree she was not flattering about Joseph or the Church; however, I don‘t believe she was as bad as many members intimate. And I found “No Ma’am, That Ain’t History,” pure nonsense, and because of who he was, Nibley’s pamphlet is embarrassing, IMO. It was pure ad hominem.

Additionally, regarding Brodies' historical acumen, Brodie was the first historian to suggest Thomas Jefferson and his slave, Sally Hemming had a strong and romantic relationship. No one believed her then, and thought her daft. It turns out she was right.

While this proves nothing regarding Joseph Smith, I think it does indicate she is not the polemic demon many people think she is. She was right about a number of things that it took the Church a while to admit.

In fact, I found, (darn, I can’t think of the name of it.) UTLM’s “Shadows” book more disconcerting than Brodie's. (Someone help me out with the name, please!)

By the way, I would add Juanita Brooks’ Mormon Mountain Massacre to the list, and guess what? I received my Massacre at Mormon Meadows today. I won’t say anything yet, well, okay I will. I am not impressed. But, I’ll give it more time, and hopefully the authors will move on from “Brigham didn’t do it.”

And if you find yourself amazed at Juanita’s books, you HAVE to read Levi Peterson’s Juanita Brooks: Mormon Woman Historian. Juanita is another of my LDS heroines. She literally wrote “MMM” while taking care of babies, taking a bus to the Huntington Library overnight so she could be there for her children in the morning. And believe me, it’s even better than that.

Also, while I understand many historians dislike Michael Quinn’s books, I find them fascinating. Additionally, books about Porter Rockwell are interesting, and sort of fun if you don’t mind your fellow Latter-day Saint is a murderer.

Oh, I just thought of one more. The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, by Stephen LeSeur. This book was very helpful to me to understand what happened in Missouri, and why, including the bloodshed. In my opinion, it is a must if you want to understand what really happened in Missouri.

Okay, I'll shut up. I think anyone who reads your list will be stunned at how it explains so many things they may have heretofore be unaware.

Great stuff, ain't it?

Elphaba