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

[MarginOfError]

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)

Please be careful in your interpretation of this verse. It appears in the midst of prophecies of war and destruction, and presumably, the men would be sent off to war. Some have speculated from the closing verses of the previous chapter that the change from “well set hair” to “baldness” could indicate a nuclear fall out (I personally don’t hold to this interpretation). Recall also that in the culture of Isaiah’s time, a woman could be humiliated by not having children; consider the embarrassment of some biblical women (or even today’s women) when they were barren.

Now look at Isaiah 3:25, “Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war.” This carries into chapter 4, where you have those same worldly women, having lost their jewels, and their fancy clothing and their well set hair 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.” It almost appears as if, having lost all of the things that gave them worldly status, they are taking ahold of whatever man is left to obtain the last remaining thing that will give them status: children.

Notice also that the manner in which these seven women approach the one man is in no way what the Lord has in mind for when people marry. According to The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Husbands are to provide for their families. Taking a wife and impregnating her while she provides for herself and children is not how the Lord would want marriage to work, which is an indication that the polygamy being discussed in this passage is not condoned by the Lord. Instead, it’s an act of desperation by women who have not given themselves to the Lord.

I don’t think that this verse can really be understood as a justification of polygamy, nor is it prophetic of a restoration of polygamous marriage in the Church. The verse is intended to illustrate how desperate the world will become as it sees the things it values slowly disappear. It certainly doesn’t fit as a justification for polyandry.

You can read a little about this in the Institute Study Manual: Old Testament Student Manual 1 Kings-Malachi

[JohnnyRudick]

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.

Paul is trying to teach the Corinth church something here using Eternal principals of the ordinances he revealed to them.

The words I want you to pay close attention to here are "power" and "glory".

Ignore the rest and just figure out here what those principals are.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember

me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to

you.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of

every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and

the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his

head covered, dishonoureth his head.

1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth

with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even

all one as if she were shaven.

1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her

also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or

shaven, let her be covered.

1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his

head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the

woman is the glory of the man.

1 Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the

woman of the man.

1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman;

but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have

power on her head because of the angels.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the

woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is

the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

1 Corinthians 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a

woman pray unto God uncovered?

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you,

that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

1 Corinthians 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a

glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we

have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

(It's not our custom today either, but there is a lesson here.)

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 18, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
After thought

[WANDERER]

On a lighter note I think polyandry doesn't work in a partriarchal society in the same way that polygamy would be able to work in a matriarchal society....

Matriarchal: can't imagine hubby doing the ironing for his eight working wives plus the care of all the children

or Patriarchal: imagine one overworked and underpaid woman of today wishing to run after 8 husbands with their dinner and laundry and all of the children.

nope no glory or power ...just a mess.

[JohnnyRudick]

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

No, not at all.

Just a thought at this is one exception that points out the rule.

We have the cherubims in Ezekiel but they did not have many heads.

They each had four faces.

No other creature ever described in Scripture.

And he/it is up to no good.

Bro. Rudick

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Indeed. That's why I labeled it as "pure speculation".

What we're doing here is taking a Church policy--the (former prohibition on women being sealed to more than one individual) and trying to extrapolate an eternal doctrine out of it. That's always a dangerous endeavor, and it's important not to get too set on any one explanation. I think the best thing to do is to keep an open mind. Frankly, if/when I make it to the CK--nothing will surprise me.

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)

The issue of who begat whom isn't necessarily my objection to polyandry--scientists can resolve that question well enough, and I imagine gods can do so as well. I guess my problem comes back to the seeming . . . I don't know . . . lack of order that would be associated with a Celestial free-for-all.

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!

But there will be priesthood in the heavenly home (older siblings). And, so far as we know, somebody has to preside within the family unit (however that unit is ultimately defined). Is there a "head husband"? Could a man be a "head husband" in one polyandrous relationship, but not in another? Just thinking about it makes me dizzy.

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?

I'm not convinced that it would necessarily need to be so. As a "god unit", perhaps all participants share in the glory brought by all of the children.

Wow we are getting waaaay out there.

Heck yeah.

I wonder how much further out we have to go to show there is no polyandry in the eternities.

I would ask, though--why is the burden of proof on those who say there is no polyandry? The argument for polyandry seems based primarily in twentieth/twenty-first century notions of "marital equality"--a social condition that has existed for barely one-tenth of one-percent of human history (assuming you accept a literalist 6000-years-since-Adam chronology). I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable using those ideas--meritorious though they are--in order to extrapolate some kind of eternal order of things.

Edited March 18, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[captmoroniRM]

Alma 37:11 should sum up this question.

[Just_A_Guy]

captmoroniRM, you are absolutely no fun whatsoever!

Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbt!

[GingerGolden]

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?

Yes, I knew you were joking, I was just playing along joking as well...

[Maxel]

I have to agree with Just_A_Guy's highly eloquent response of your proffered scriptural explanation, captainmoroniRM.

Going back to the OP, I wanted to add my own observation on something.

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.

First of all, if that's what you need to do to find peace about the polyandry/polygamy issue, then hold to that. Don't worry about anything you haven't been given revelation about. Building a testimony is like building a wall: occasionally, we are given a brick that doesn't fit anywhere. Don't discard the brick, but put it aside for now: you'll find later that a spot will open up in which the brick will fit perfectly.

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?

This is the heart of what I wanted to talk about. Since my birth, I have not been able to not see what I think are true differences between the female and male spirit. Indeed, if there was no real difference then there would be no gender dysphoria: everyone would be androgynous and 'blah'. Societal and cultural influences cannot fully explain the difference between men and women.

Stay with me on this: I think, personally, there are more righteous women than men. I look to advice given to young people in the Church.

To the women: Stay faithful! Things will work out; have faith in God and stay chaste.

To the men: Stand a little taller. Date more; take more responsibility.

Are there unrighteous women and righteous men? Of course. I think, though, the proportion of righteous women to righteous men is higher than 1:1.

I look to a statement made by an LDS man (forget his name) in response to the label of 'barbaric' that had been attached to the LDS practice of polygamy in the mid-to-late 1900's. In essence, he said that the practice of polygamy had virtually eliminated the social plagues of prostitution, single parents (either through non-marital relations or death of spouses), and righteous women without the opportunity to marry. Contrasted against the non-polygamous society of the United States, in which the aforementioned hardships and evils were rampant, polygamy seemed a tool to greater social justice.

In part, I believe the age-old stereotype of women as loving and caring stay-at-home mothers and men as hardened bread-winners has valid spiritual parallels. In many ancient cultures, separated by distance and time, we see the same pattern repeated.

I look to the ancient symbol of the Ying Yang and the ancient martial art of Shotokan Karate. The Ying Yang represents 'how seemingly disjunct or opposing forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, giving rise to each other in turn' (wikipedia): day and night, land and sea, hard and soft, male and female. In Shotokan Karate (and other martial arts styles), there are different kinds of strikes. One way of categorizing them is 'hard' (hitting with the bone) and 'soft' (hitting with the muscle). In the cultures of the day, 'hard' was seen as representative of the male, and 'soft' was seen as representative of the female.

I look to the scripture (1 Corinthians 11:11) that states: 'Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord'. I do not find it coincidence that this statement comes after a treatment of the differences between men and women, including the declaration that woman was created for the man (v. 9). Nor do I find it coincidence that the author goes on to immediately say 'For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God' (v. 12).

Finally, I look to my own feelings. I believe women and men are different in fundamentally different ways. Although individual men and women may at first seem to be completely opposite of what a 'man' and a 'woman' is supposed to be like, I believe if we could see them as they truly are- if we could see their spirit, stripped of social prejudice and conditioning- then we would see they are, truly, what they were born as: a man or a woman, and that each person was truly male or female on fundamental levels.

[deseretgov]

I look to a statement made by an LDS man (forget his name) in response to the label of 'barbaric' that had been attached to the LDS practice of polygamy in the mid-to-late 1900's. In essence, he said that the practice of polygamy had virtually eliminated the social plagues of prostitution, single parents (either through non-marital relations or death of spouses), and righteous women without the opportunity to marry. Contrasted against the non-polygamous society of the United States, in which the aforementioned hardships and evils were rampant, polygamy seemed a tool to greater social justice.

I think this is a very good reason for polygamy. Honestly I wish polygamy was still acceptable in the church(not refering to one wife dying and marrying another). I'm sorry if people get upset at me for saying this but honestly I do. While serving my mission in the Philippines I saw this over an over. There were way more righteous women than men. In one branch I served in there was the Branch President, us two missionaries, the branch president's teacher and decon aged sons, and about twenty women. Most of the women were not married. So they face the option of marrying an unworthy man(chances very likely) or waiting for a righteous men to marry(very reasonable but less likely). Another woman I knew didn't marry a member and committed suicide after her husband had an affair. Another woman had her husband (who was working in canda) break it off with her(they got married in the Phils and there is no divorce so technically they are still married). Now apperently she is a prostitute. there are tons more examples.

Sure you can say that if these women were really righteous they would have worked through the situations better. I'm not saying the men are all to blame but how much better would it have been if they had a righteous husband.

So for me I wish there was polygamy so that righteous women in the Philippines(which by far outnumber the righteous men) could have a righteous husband. Even if it wasn't me they were married to, they deserve something better than what they have right now. Of course it would be a nightmare if I could marry more than one woman and they were from the Philippines. The government fees and immigration paper work for my one wife was insane. I'd go insane if I had to do it for more than one woman.

I'm sorry if this makes me unrighteous or a bad person. They need rightous men so badly and I wish I could do more.

But having said that I did marry a Filipina and we are happily married. She is pregnant with our first child, a daughter. So while I wish I could do more, I am more than happy to be a righteous husband for my wife. I'm working to be the best I can be for her. Since we have been married Oct 08 I have become much more responsible, and I have a long way to go. I'm thankful for the opportunity to be married to such a wonderful woman. At least I can be a righteous husband to her. I asked here once what she where she would be now if we hadn't gotten married. She said she probably would be living in Manila(she's not from there). She also said she probably would not have married in the temple neither woud her husband have been a member.

I hope my wife doesn't read this or I might get in trouble. hehehe

[foreverafter]

Sure you can say that if these women were really righteous they would have worked through the situations better. I'm not saying the men are all to blame but how much better would it have been if they had a righteous husband.

I'm afraid you greatly underestimate the deep pain that polygamy causes most all women, if a woman is honest & not in denial about it. No woman wants to share her husband, unless she is not that in love with him & would rather do other things than be with him. Polygamy for women is about equal to the pain of a husband having an affair or multiple affairs, which is one of the worst things a woman can go through in this life. It feels the same to the woman whether authorized or not, especially if the husband doesn't love his wife & thus puts his own needs & desires ahead of his wife's & does the choosing in the polygamy & doesn't let the wife do the choosing of who the next wife would be. Most men have no clue the torture women were asked to go through by polygamy in the 1800's, though most women did not speak of the pain in public & spoke as if all was well. If a man will just think about the Golden Rule & how he would feel if it was the other way around (& may be someday) then he may get a glimpse of their pain.

Many women would have remained unmarried or stayed married to their unrighteous husbands, rather than endure that pain, but they were told that they wouldn't be exalted if they weren't sealed to a man, so many did it for that reason. But we know today that that is not true, anymore than the Catholic belief that a baby won't go to heaven if they are not baptized before they die. Women don't have to marry in this life if they don't find a man they feel they can trust to never hurt them or be unfaithful to them. Women can just wait to find a man for herself in the milleneum. If the women of the 1800's had known that truth there would have been alot less women willing to endure such needless pain.

Edited March 19, 2009 by foreverafter

[Dale]

I do feel most misunderstand Joseph Smith's polyandry as allowing a woman to have marital relations with two husbands at the same time. A close reading of D.&C. 132 requires a woman to be released from her vows to an existing husband to be with Joseph Smith. And such a release could only be obtained if the existing husband were guilty of adultery. And once appointed to be only Joseph Smith's plural wife she could not live with the former husband, or be guilty of adultery on Joseph Smith.

Most likely in my mind these 11 women, and legal husbands regarded their vows to be ended at death. Then after death in the resurrection they contemplated living with Joseph Smith and having his children. The claim Sylvia Sessions had a child by Joseph Smith i dispute as i am unimpressed with the quotes used to substantiate the claim. Outside of a child there is no evidence Joseph smith committed adultery with any married woman.

[deseretgov]

You're right. polygamy was not an easy thing to do. I don't want it to sound like polygamy would be rainbows, sunshine, and sweet smelling flowers. Marriage to only one women isn't even that. Maybe I'm not being realistic but I would think that it would be better(eternally) to have multiple women marry one righteous man than have those women each marry an unrighteous man who brings them down.

Just thinking out loud here, but supposing polygamy had been continued in the church from when it was first instituted. Would we have "overcome" our cultural programing of each woman having her own husband? I mean in a culture where every woman is expected and expects to have her own husband it would be alot harder to introduce a plural marriage practice. But after many years would that culture chnage to where every woman is expected and expects to share her husband with other women. I wonder if those hurtful and painful feelings would be overcome.

[WANDERER]

There are many concepts that have only entered into the last 10%? or so of history: no slavery, the concept of romance and marrying for love, children's rights to an education, democracy and marital equality. Are they compatible with the eternal order of things? Does the continuity of practice througout history lend credence to oposition or suspicion, despite their being merits in such concepts, and highlight them as disorder within the eternal thread of things?

IF we are happy with gender differences as leading to separate roles and rights how well does historical precedence rest with our practices today? Are we comfortable with all of the beliefs in the past that were held as eternal truths and seen as fundamental differences?

There are fundamental differences between individuals within genders (who don't see it as a gender issue) as well. Genetic inheritance is diverse (even without socialisation and culturalisation). For those that find individuals within genders as confusing perhaps without conditioning and social prejudice they may be able to perceive that those confusing individuals are not in denial of their gender or lacking in it because of whatever differences they have. To make sure it is clear...guys may prefer floral tablecloths and girls may like powertools...this is not disingendering. Many things don't in effect change that you are a woman or a man ; ) . Why must those things be seen as fundamentals if they do not change the order of things?

Edited March 19, 2009 by wandering

[foreverafter]

Just thinking out loud here, but supposing polygamy had been continued in the church from when it was first instituted. Would we have "overcome" our cultural programing of each woman having her own husband? I mean in a culture where every woman is expected and expects to have her own husband it would be alot harder to introduce a plural marriage practice. But after many years would that culture chnage to where every woman is expected and expects to share her husband with other women. I wonder if those hurtful and painful feelings would be overcome.

Polygamy has been in most major societies for 6000 years & women have never "got used to it" or thought it to be the ideal, (any more than men would get used to sharing their wife), unless they are in denial, which many are, because that's what pain usually does to abused women. But polygamy is not the ideal, Heavenly Father wanted women to have their own husbands, & Brigham Young said it would be that way if men would be righteous. But most men aren't, & Heavenly Father knew most men would not be faithful to their wives, but he didn't want all their wives to just divorce their husbands & destroy the children & family because the man was unfaithful. He asks women to never give up on their husbands, because member or not, he knows they will repent someday, in this life or the next, & the women who hold out & stay faithful to their vows & errant husband will have him through all eternity(all repentant, humble, loving & grateful to her). And he will spend eternity making it all up to her. So for enduring 50 hard years on earth, these strong women (or men if visa versa) reap an eternity of bliss with their repentant husband if they hold out. So if all women would do this their would be very little polygamy. For instead of sharing a few righteous men, women would save one for herself. The Prophets have been very clear that this is the power of a spouse if they are faithful, they can save their spouse. So women who want their own spouse throughout eternity can have one, if she wants to do what it takes to save one for herself, for most men need saving by their wife. But if the woman doesn't want to, she can just find an easier righteous one & share him.

But I do believe that those in a plural marriage will be fine with it in heaven though & living it will be different & easier than here.

In heaven many men will most likely have to share their wives too, for the prophets have said that women receive every blessing & gift that men do & plural marriage is a blessing of Abraham for righteousness. And since the prophets have said that women have been more righteous as a whole than men, they may even be given more spouses than men are. Very little has been revealed about women's blessings in heaven, mostly it's about men's, to help men be righteous. In 6000 years men in major societies have never been able to handle women's equality & granted her the same rights & privileges he has taken for himself, until today. Even in the 1800's most all men still considered women more like children to be ruled & dictated to. So things will most likely be alot different if & when plural marriage is brought back, now that men accept women as their equals. Also, love is eternal, whether it's for a 1st husband or 5th husband, as long as the marriage was entered into righteously. To make a woman choose which husband to be with if she had more than one, would be a most horrific thought, not only here in this life but especially in the next when our feelings are even more intense. I do not believe God asks women to fall in love with her husband & have children with him & a family just to break them all up, even if she was sealed to another 1st. As Joseph Smith said, there is much more to be revealed concerning plural marriage, when we can all handle it. But D&C 132 does speak of women taking more than one husband too but she must be 1st anointed to do so, like men must be.

Edited March 19, 2009 by foreverafter

[JohnnyRudick]

Hummmmmmmmmmm, OK:eek:

Bro. Rudick

[foreverafter]

There are many concepts that have only entered into the last 10%? or so of history: no slavery, the concept of romance and marrying for love, children's rights to an education, democracy and marital equality. Are they compatible with the eternal order of things?

Our modern Prophets have revealed much more in our day than ever before in the history of the world, about the true station, authority & power of women & about marriage & what it should be like, an "Eternal Ecstacy of Equals" with neither above the other. It took most men 6000 years to honor their AA brothers equality & their wives equality. But now we can really build on these true principles & achieve the ideal of marriage, for these principles were kept hidden for so long, because of men's pride & women's low-self worth that didn't cause them to stand up earlier in history (though a few tried) to teach & expect respect & equality & faithfulness from men rather then tolerate abuse & domination for 6000 years.

Also, romantic love has always been a divine characteristic of especially righteous people. But when women or men are not respected & given their agency to choose for themselves, but have spouses chosen for them, then you won't see romantic love as much, but it has always been there throughout history & will be the greatest principle in heaven. For True Love is the highest requirement for exaltation & is the proof of our righteousness if we have it for our spouse.

Edited March 19, 2009 by foreverafter

[Faded]

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?

Well, we probably ought to focus on the reasons for polygamy. It's not really about men (as a whole) being better than women. It's about women (as a whole) being better than men. Us men are, on the average, a bunch of nit-wits. Too many of our sex are too proud or too foolish or too something, to trust in God and receive Eternal Life.

Let's fast forward to the Celestial Kingdom and consider those who have done all things necessary for God and Jesus Christ to elevate them to exaltation. In that group, I think there is very little question: There are going to be more women than men. But in order to receive a fullness of the blessing of Eternal Life, a person needs a spouse. So what is to be done? Polygamy is the obvious solution -- meaning one man married to multiple wives. Now if there are multiple wives and all parties have become infinite and perfect, then viewing it through the lens of our current mortality is not a very good way to understand it. Perfect people sharing in infinity means nobody gets anything less than infinity. Jealously and rivalry would not be an issue either.

The reason that I strongly doubt that polyandry will exist is because it would serve no purpose, and would even be counter-productive. If you have a limited quantity of men, it would seem ... wasteful and inefficient I guess.

ALL OF THE ABOVE IS MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Faded

[bytor2112]

Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated, "......the holy practice will commence again after the second coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium."

I suspect that if we are not among the tares and have been spared the cleansing of the earth of the unrighteous, we will have a fresh outlook on many gospel principals.......including the "holy practice" as Elder McConkie phrased it.

[interalia]

You're right. polygamy was not an easy thing to do. I don't want it to sound like polygamy would be rainbows, sunshine, and sweet smelling flowers. Marriage to only one women isn't even that. Maybe I'm not being realistic but I would think that it would be better(eternally) to have multiple women marry one righteous man than have those women each marry an unrighteous man who brings them down.

Just thinking out loud here, but supposing polygamy had been continued in the church from when it was first instituted. Would we have "overcome" our cultural programing of each woman having her own husband? I mean in a culture where every woman is expected and expects to have her own husband it would be alot harder to introduce a plural marriage practice. But after many years would that culture chnage to where every woman is expected and expects to share her husband with other women. I wonder if those hurtful and painful feelings would be overcome.

Using your thought experiment, we CAN see polygamy in practice today. Take a look at the myriad of groups that still practice it. We have lots of samples and we can see the terrible consequences. You can blame in on unrighteous dominion and false prophets and that somehow the LDS church would not have done that, but I think it is deeper than that.

[interalia]

Women more righteous than men?

This doesn't sound like something that represents reality. Seems more like an excuse to "exalt" women in this life and put them on pedestals so men can protect them and keep them as dolls.

Dang! My inner feminist came out!

But seriously, I missed in the scriptures with all the descriptions of those who would enter in at the straight gate where it said, "And most of these shall be women because men suck." Granted I know that just because a scripture doesn't talk about it doesn't mean it cannot be, but I would love to see more information on this.

I am a convert to the church, but the thing I always understood the least has been the gender differences espoused by the church. Each time I go to talk to someone about it, a bishop, a RF president, and others and I mention the perceptual inequality, I always get told the same thing: they say something about women being more righteous than men, or women are more spiritual, or women are more <insert holy attribute here> than men. That doesn't make the sexes equal - it makes us less equal.

I didn't mean to go all tangential, I just don't know the spiritual base for where this idea comes from (that more women will enter the Celestial Kingdom than men).

[WANDERER]

Hmmm...roles are seen as making someone more sucessfully feminine or more successfully male ...celestialisation of such roles...though you know...gender is unchangeable it neither increases or diminishes through any job or role allocation or enforced or acquired behaviour or practice (surname inheritance, polyandry, polygamy, preference of florals over powertools, who has headship or neckship etc) regardless of perception. How can it remove gender?

The concept of enhanced gender roles via greater glory and reproductive incidences might increase the issue of the man involved in polygamy but won't increase the population of heavenly children on the whole...it's pretty much limited by the sum population of women wives existing...and their issue will be much the same not increased by sharing...don't you wonder whether more godunits and more worlds would be more beneficial than less godunits and faster worlds or whether it would make any difference at all in the rate of the universe?

[Faded]

Women more righteous than men?

This doesn't sound like something that represents reality. Seems more like an excuse to "exalt" women in this life and put them on pedestals so men can protect them and keep them as dolls.

Dang! My inner feminist came out!

But seriously, I missed in the scriptures with all the descriptions of those who would enter in at the straight gate where it said, "And most of these shall be women because men suck." Granted I know that just because a scripture doesn't talk about it doesn't mean it cannot be, but I would love to see more information on this.

I am a convert to the church, but the thing I always understood the least has been the gender differences espoused by the church. Each time I go to talk to someone about it, a bishop, a RF president, and others and I mention the perceptual inequality, I always get told the same thing: they say something about women being more righteous than men, or women are more spiritual, or women are more <insert holy attribute here> than men. That doesn't make the sexes equal - it makes us less equal.

I didn't mean to go all tangential, I just don't know the spiritual base for where this idea comes from (that more women will enter the Celestial Kingdom than men).

Firstly, everything I said is my own personal opinion. In an eternal sense, it would be impossible to have equal numbers of men and women exalted and for polygamy to exist. Polyandry would fall under the same logic. There would be no purpose for either if men and women were equally represented. That is just what makes simple mathematical sense to me: there would have to be more women than men.

Ultimately, I'm right there with most members of the Church, life-long member or not. I have had to confront the doctrine of polygamy and have been forced to make some kind of sense out of it because it is a VERY difficult doctrine to digest. I'm thankful that I will probably never be asked to participate in polygamy in this life. I don't want to. My conclusions are not the official doctrine of the Church, but they are not contrary to it either. Above all else, in my mind, it's the only way that polygamy is not a sexist doctrine. God does not favor men over women, so there HAS to be something that makes sense of it all.

You are welcome to think that my conclusions are sexist. I don't think they are, but I also don't know with absolute certainty that I'm right either. It is true that men and women get equal opportunities to either accept or reject the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. In my experience, women seem to do so more readily than men. As far as proportions go, I really have no way of knowing that.

As to the reference in Isaiah about "7 women to 1 man", it is more likely that this is a symbolic reference to the seven cities of the Kingdom of Judah are the women and Jesus Christ as the one man. If it comes true literally, then I'll be proven wrong.

[JohnnyRudick]

Who says gestation is how children are begotten in heaven? Gestation is the fallen means - remember? (women being under men is fallen too) - once the curse is lifted, all of that will go away.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

(Old Testament | Genesis 3:16)

Everything in Gen 3:16 is a curse and will be removed.

see footnote

16 a TG Marriage, Motherhood

b HEB increase thy discomfort and thy size (i.e., in the condition and process of pregnancy)

c TG Suffering

d 2 Ne. 2:23; Moses 4:22; TG Children

(Old Testament:Genesis 3:16)

When the curse is lifted, there will be no "increase thy discomfort and thy size" to have children. There will be no more "desire to thy husband" there will be no more "he shall rule over thee". Unless of course you still think Adam will "by the seat of his brow" etc. etc. All of this is going to go away.

15 And their curse was taken from them...

(Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 2:15)

from a previopus thread:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Come to think of it, has HM created spirit children?

HF had only one begotten Son, and that son was born, not to HM - but to a handmaid:

38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord;

(New Testament | Luke 1:38)

The prego type of begetting is a fallen means,

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

(Old Testament | Genesis 3:16)

Does that mean that before

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto

them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. . .

That there was no more being fruitful, and multiplying?

In the garden before the fall you see even Paul using this to teach that Wives were subject to their husbands in his discussion of headship.

1 Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the

woman of the man.

1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman;

but the woman for the man.

1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have

power on her head because of the angels.

1 Corinthians 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the

woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is

the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

He is referring to a time even before the fall when the woman was brought before the man to be named.

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon

Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up

the flesh instead thereof;

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from

man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and

flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was

taken out of Man.

Adam named her in the Garden, and he named her again after the Garden.

Genesis 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she

was the mother of all living.

He named her on both sides of Eden.

Bro. Rudick

Edited March 19, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Add Scripture

[Hemidakota]

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?

No...