Will there be polyandry in heaven? (1 woman, x husbands where x > 1)

[interalia]

The other thread on this seemed more about polygyny (1 man, multiple wives) and was already 9 pages long, so I decided to start a new one about polyandry.

If polygyny is looked at as weird, then polyandry is out of this world to most LDS. I am really surprised by this (though not totally considering our culture). It seems to me that if polygyny exists in heaven that polyandry should as well.

Sometimes to justify how all the sealing stuff works in my head, I just imagine heaven as a place where everyone is sealed together and we drop the whole 'marriage' thing from it.

But if we want to talk marriage, if a man can be married to multiple wives even into the eternities, could it not also be possible for women to be married to more than one husband? If not, is there something so fundamentally different about the female spirit that makes it invalid for having more than one husband?

I tend to look at the sexes equally and see the majority of differences coming from nothing other than culture and stereotype. Men have the priesthood in this life, but women do to or so I assume or they would not be able to perform the acts they do in the temple - it is just not expedient they use it outside of the temple I assume.

So what do you think?

[Just_A_Guy]

I think heavenly polyandry may be possible, but we have very little to go on here. We know Joseph Smith practiced it, but I don't know that he preached very much about it either in public or in private (and it was alleged in the other thread that even as Joseph practiced earthly polyandry, none of those women was sealed to any man but him--so Joseph's practice doesn't necessarily translate into eternal polyandry).

I can see why someone would envision heaven as one big society where everyone is married to everyone--but, to be blunt, the idea repulses me on a personal level. Aside from the emotional intimacy that comes with being part of a specific and relatively exclusive marital unit, the idea of millions of heavenly half-siblings and quarter-siblings and step-siblings-once-removed would create a cat's-cradle of bizarrely intersecting lineages that seems contrary to the little we do know about the patriarchal order.

[captmoroniRM]

I posted this in the other discussion:

Polyandry, by definition is one woman having multiple husbands.

Having read most of the published writings of Joseph Smith, he never once taught or sanctioned the practice of Polyandry. No prophet since has, to my knowledge. The practice itself is against the order of heaven.

The Priesthood is the organizing power and principle in the eternities. It is the authority to bind on earth and in heaven. It is what "organizes" us into family units. It is what validates sacred ordinances. It is necessary for exaltation.

The principle of exaltation involves a man submitting himself to the Celestial law by covenant and his wives submitting themselves unto him. Males and Females who reject the heavenly order will fail to be exalted, remaining separate and single throughout eternity. In regards to plural marriage, it is still one man with separate, solemn covenants with each individual woman, not one man with one covenant to several women. They submit themselves to their husband, by covenant.

Polyandry would be in disagreement with these principles. It would result in unnatural unions which would not bring the full blessings of exaltation. It would not even be the same as the Lord's justification of using polygamy to raise up seed unto him.

[Connie]

Ohh yeah, bring it on!! I get dibs on Brendan Fraser!

[Justice]

My wife and I actually met Brendan Fraser in a restaraunt in Manhattan several years ago.

[Connie]

does that mean i don't get dibs??

[GingerGolden]

does that mean i don't get dibs??

LOL!

Branden is a cutie, isn't he!

LOL!

[JohnnyRudick]

Very interesting.

Here is what I believe.

I speak for myself.

I am not so sure I would be able to handle more then one woman but Nature in general tells me that is is not the natural order of things that a woman should have more then one husband.

I know.

There are some who can find obscure instances in Nature where it happens but it is not the rule of things.

In Heaven in the pre-existence it was the Father who directed the H evenly council.

In the Garden God created man first.

In His own image He created man.

In His own image created He them, but He created man first.

Whatsoever he called the animals that would be what they would be called.

The Scriptures tell us that the woman was taken from the man and even her designation as woman is a word telling us that she is a Womb - man.

She was brought to the man.

He was called Adam.

They were called Adam.

Mr. and Mrs. Adam.

God set the pattern.

In most of Nature the pattern remains that the Man is the headd of the house hold.

In most societies that pattern has survived to this day.

There have been societies where tradition had been lost through travesty and they had to start all over again and things change but where tradition has held for centuries, man is the head of the house.

It is the Order of heaven and God established that order on Earth.

He did that for a reason.

You tend to keep on going the way you are heading unless you turn or get turned, stop or get stopped.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

I posted this in the other discussion:

Polyandry, by definition is one woman having multiple husbands.

Having read most of the published writings of Joseph Smith, he never once taught or sanctioned the practice of Polyandry. No prophet since has, to my knowledge. The practice itself is against the order of heaven.

The Priesthood is the organizing power and principle in the eternities. It is the authority to bind on earth and in heaven. It is what "organizes" us into family units. It is what validates sacred ordinances. It is necessary for exaltation.

The principle of exaltation involves a man submitting himself to the Celestial law by covenant and his wives submitting themselves unto him. Males and Females who reject the heavenly order will fail to be exalted, remaining separate and single throughout eternity. In regards to plural marriage, it is still one man with separate, solemn covenants with each individual woman, not one man with one covenant to several women. They submit themselves to their husband, by covenant.

Polyandry would be in disagreement with these principles. It would result in unnatural unions which would not bring the full blessings of exaltation. It would not even be the same as the Lord's justification of using polygamy to raise up seed unto him.

I don't know how this got passed me till I submitted my comment:rolleyes:

You put in such a great post.

Would have saved me a lot of head scratchin' if Id seen it.

Bro. Rudick

[interalia]

I guess I don't see 'man being first' as a reason for women not to be able to have multiple husbands. Is having multiple spouses a thing reserved only for men? If so, why?

I see this 'natural order' as something reserved for us hard-hearted individuals here on our little Telestial world because we cannot abide a higher law. When we can, I imagine things will change - in fact, looking at church history, one can see how they already have. As God's children were able to accept more, and the time was right, He has given us new information. I don't necessarily believe God has to reveal this particular idea of polyandry, but I don't feel it is impossible - even if it has to wait till the Millennium.

[Connie]

Isaiah 4:1

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

This verse suggests, to me, that there will not be a nice, clean 1:1 ratio. And, unfortunately for me, it does not suggest that there will be more men than women. This suggests that there will be more women than men. Wouldn't you say?

(I guess i'll have to give up on my Brendan Fraser idea.... sigh)

[GingerGolden]

If so, why?

I think it has to do with simple multiplication, really.

One man a father.

Women - mothers.

When you have only one man for a woman or in this theory more than one woman.

You know who the babies belong to...(if everyone is faithful, of course)

When you have more than one man sleeping with a woman and that woman becomes pregnant, it could possibly cause great confusion as to whom the father might actually be, especially if the woman isn't keeping account of her cycle as well as the various occurrences of coupling.

So, if a woman has no idea which man is the father of the child before its born, it could put a lot of unnecessary pressure on all concerned, even the unborn child.

It just makes sense to me that the answer lies in knowing who the father is in such a marriage as what you are speaking of.

~~~

Although, I know from having my own children that there is no mistaking who the father is as soon as the child is born just by looking at the child. In my case, when first holding my baby, she looked just like her dad, and within seconds she looked like his dad and then like my own father in the face. (I did know who my child belonged too, to begin with, but I was truly amazed to see all those men's faces in my newborns face right after she was born. It was nearly the same occurrence with the looks of my 2nd newborn.)

At least this is my own experience, I can't talk for anyone else, but I figure it's bound to be likewise with other mothers and their children. Seeing their fathers face in them, I mean...

~~~

As far as having a multitude of spouses, I don't think I could handle trying to keep up with more than one husband.

Can you imagine trying to keep up with all their laundry, favorite foods, and other personal details?

It's bound to be much easier for a man to have more than one wife, all he'd need to do is plant a big flower garden (and some of the other manly things that men do) and many of them would be thrilled.

Besides, think of all the helpers that you would have, who could help with any chores...

One is enough for me if he is a good man!

To be quite truthful, it seems to me that it is more natural for there to be a man with multiple wives than it would be for a woman to have more than one husband...

Edited March 18, 2009 by GingerGolden

[GingerGolden]

Isaiah 4:1

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

This verse suggests, to me, that there will not be a nice, clean 1:1 ratio. And, unfortunately for me, it does not suggest that there will be more men than women. This suggests that there will be more women than men. Wouldn't you say?

(I guess i'll have to give up on my Brendan Fraser idea.... sigh)

* just a thought...

Perhaps, it may be that women are more apt to share with others than men?

So, Connie, do you think you would mind sharing Mr. Fraser with other women?

You may not have to give him up here, if you could share him.

lol

[JohnnyRudick]

I guess I don't see 'man being first' as a reason for women not to be able to have multiple husbands. Is having multiple spouses a thing reserved only for men? If so, why?

I see this 'natural order' as something reserved for us hard-hearted individuals here on our little Telestial world because we cannot abide a higher law. When we can, I imagine things will change - in fact, looking at church history, one can see how they already have. As God's children were able to accept more, and the time was right, He has given us new information. I don't necessarily believe God has to reveal this particular idea of polyandry, but I don't feel it is impossible - even if it has to wait till the Millennium.

I'm sorry you missed the symbolism of headship.

In this earthly life we have many pictures of the divine.

The bride of Christ.

Christ the bridegroom.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly

jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may

present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Paul presenting the bride to Christ.

Christ is the head of the Church as man is to the woman.

Headship was set up in the Garden.

Not in the Church Age when man's traditions hold sway.

If you can't see it, your not alone.

Many can't.

Bro. Rudick

[Just_A_Guy]

I guess I don't see 'man being first' as a reason for women not to be able to have multiple husbands. Is having multiple spouses a thing reserved only for men? If so, why?

Pure speculation here, but if

--the role of an exalted "god unit" (man + wife/wives) is to create new spirits, and

--fulfilling that role is the primary/only way that the glory of the god unit may increase, and

--the process for creating spirits is analagous to the process for creating bodies (e.g. some kind of "gestation" done by the female),

then polygamy would increase the rate at which the god unit could create new spirits (and add to their glory), while polyandry would serve no purpose at all.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnnyRudick]

Pure speculation here, but if

--the role of an exalted "god unit" (man + wife/wives) is to create new spirits, and

--fulfilling that role is the primary/only way that the glory of the god unit may increase, and

--the process for creating spirits is analagous to the process for creating bodies (e.g. some kind of "gestation" done by the female),

then polygamy would increase the rate at which the god unit could create new spirits (and add to their glory), while polyandry would serve no purpose at all.

Go figure:o

Bro. Rudick

[interalia]

Pure speculation here, but if

--the role of an exalted "god unit" (man + wife/wives) is to create new spirits, and

--fulfilling that role is the primary/only way that the glory of the god unit may increase, and

--the process for creating spirits is analagous to the process for creating bodies (e.g. some kind of "gestation" done by the female),

then polygamy would increase the rate at which the god unit could create new spirits (and add to their glory), while polyandry would serve no purpose at all.

Ok, but the question is, DO we assume that there is some sort of female gestation? I mean that argument makes perfectly sound sense if the woman is the one that takes longer in the process, but since I don't think we have any idea of how Heavenly begotting takes place, I don't know if that argument holds. What if the man is more involved in the creation of spirit children than the woman? It could be held that polyandry would be the most efficient course. I'm not saying this is true, just saying we don't know. Or at least I don't, anyone have any reference to share for how spirit children are begotten and developmental roles exalted men/women play?

[WANDERER]

When you have only one man for a woman or in this theory more than one woman.

You know who the babies belong to...(if everyone is faithful, of course)

I'm assuming that genetics can be determined...but I'm not sure they would matter within a family unit of either polyandry or polygamy providing everyone was faithful...LOL on separate worlds where would they find someone to cheat with?

Perhaps, it may be that women are more apt to share with others than men?

Logically then, they wouldn't have a problem with sharing themselves with multiple husbands either. No doubt men would cope as well as women do...

The bride of Christ.

Christ the bridegroom. etc.

I gather that a chaste? monogamous? how do you phrase that? husband and a polyandrous wife with headship is a possibility...if unusual to consider.

then polygamy would increase the rate at which the god unit could create new spirits

I'm assuming that the number of women who can be pregnant at any one given time is equal to the number of women...thus some men may have less wives and some more wives but the population potential does not change for the sum total of the god units altogether. Thus altruistically, the overall glory of all the godunits is not a number that can be increased by increasing the number of wives or in fact husbands one has.

This suggests that there will be more women than men.

On the hypothetical level....this may not be the case on all worlds, our future world, or on all future worlds. However the possibility that seven women may want the same man or vice versa is not rare.. usually with a different outcome.

[talisyn]

Pure speculation here, but if

--the role of an exalted "god unit" (man + wife/wives) is to create new spirits, and

--fulfilling that role is the primary/only way that the glory of the god unit may increase, and

--the process for creating spirits is analagous to the process for creating bodies (e.g. some kind of "gestation" done by the female),

then polygamy would increase the rate at which the god unit could create new spirits (and add to their glory), while polyandry would serve no purpose at all.

Emphasis mine.

Only a guy would say something like this

I always thought polygamy would create a lot more stress on the husband, having to love and cherish and listen to multiple women, all having an equal claim to him. In polyandry it is true the husbands would not necessarily know who begotted what kid, but I see this as a mortal/societal problem (i.e. caveman possessive). Imagine a child raised in a household where he/she is cherished and taught by not one but two or three priesthood holders. What a lucky kid! As for the wife.....married to two or three Brandon Fraser-types doesn't seem like that much of a hardship

Edited March 18, 2009 by talisyn

[Connie]

So, Connie, do you think you would mind sharing Mr. Fraser with other women?

You may not have to give him up here, if you could share him.

lol

Well, considering the fact i'm already married (poor guy) coupled with the fact that i was completely joking.... i'd better leave said Mr. Fraser to someone else.

Polyandry would certainly raise some interesting questions, such as: which of the husbands' names does the woman take, the first, the "favorite"? or do we get rid of that custom and make the husbands take the woman's last name?

then do all the kids have the last name of their father, thus having different last names or just have everyone take the name of the mother?

[talisyn]

Well, considering the fact i'm already married (poor guy) coupled with the fact that i was completely joking.... i'd better leave said Mr. Fraser to someone else.

Polyandry would certainly raise some interesting questions, such as: which of the husbands' names does the woman take, the first, the "favorite"? or do we get rid of that custom and make the husbands take the woman's last name?

then do all the kids have the last name of their father, thus having different last names or just have everyone take the name of the mother?

In any civilization, and in any marriage (before DNA testing of course), the only parent we know for a fact is the parent is the mother. Most husband and wives are faithful, I would even say the vast majority of husband and wives are faithful, but basically we have only their word for it. I'm guessing the whole patrilineal thing came about through divine means because I really don't see how it could sustain itself. Imagine how different life would be if society was matrilineal

I want it said for the record that I understand the universe is run by the priesthood and that is patriarchal in nature. I have no problem with it, believing in the theory of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.

[interalia]

Pure speculation here, but if

--the role of an exalted "god unit" (man + wife/wives) is to create new spirits, and

--fulfilling that role is the primary/only way that the glory of the god unit may increase, and

--the process for creating spirits is analagous to the process for creating bodies (e.g. some kind of "gestation" done by the female),

then polygamy would increase the rate at which the god unit could create new spirits (and add to their glory), while polyandry would serve no purpose at all.

I cannot believe I didn't see this earlier!!! I just thought of a pretty dark take on your statement.

So the idea is that women "gestate" thus take longer to have children, so the man needs more than one woman in order to bring about the most spirit offspring. So does that mean the man alone gets glory for having so many offspring while the woman receives only the glory she would receive for the number of children she herself can bring about?

Wow we are getting waaaay out there. I wonder how much further out we have to go to show there is no polyandry in the eternities. This is why it is easier to believe that it is not only possible, but plausible.

For the record, I myself have no desire to be polygamous whatsoever! I would be hurt and shamed if my wife loved another the way she loves me, and I wouldn't want to divide my devotion among more than one wife. I want her to know she is the ONE for me in my life. I believe this so strongly, I doubt I could bring myself to be remarried were something to happen to her.

I only bring up this discussion because it interests me as most gender issues in the church do. I wanted to know what people thought or if there was revelation out there I wasn't privvy to it that would confirm or deny this.

[interalia]

Emphasis mine.

Only a guy would say something like this

I always thought polygamy would create a lot more stress on the husband, having to love and cherish and listen to multiple women, all having an equal claim to him. In polyandry it is true the husbands would not necessarily know who begotted what kid, but I see this as a mortal/societal problem (i.e. caveman possessive). Imagine a child raised in a household where he/she is cherished and taught by not one but two or three priesthood holders. What a lucky kid! As for the wife.....married to two or three Brandon Fraser-types doesn't seem like that much of a hardship

In fact some bird species will allow multiple males to inject sperm into the female so that there is confusion among the male birds as to whose eggs have been laid. This causes both males to provide and care for the young. What a great deal for her!

[JohnnyRudick]

I gather that a chaste? monogamous? how do you phrase that? husband and a polyandrous wife with headship is a possibility...if unusual to consider. . .

On the hypothetical level....this may not be the case on all worlds, our future world, or on all future worlds. However the possibility that seven women may want the same man or vice versa is not rare.. usually with a different outcome.

I am hoping this is all done with the up - most "tongue in cheek".

A beast with many heads?

Bro. Rudick

[WANDERER]

I think it's unimportant....currently I find it unlikely that I will end up in a polyandrous or polygamus relationship so my perspective is neutrally curious as to what unanswered questions it poses.

That priesthood is patriarchal is also unimportant in the same respect...since I am unlikely to nominate, my perspective is neutrally curious as to what unanswered questions it poses in association to the topic on the question of polyandry in the afterlife. Can polyandry exist under patriarchy?

er, beast with many heads hadn't occurred to me Bro Rudrick...is polyandry what the scriptures had in mind do you think?

Edited March 18, 2009 by wandering