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

[interalia]

Firstly, apology accepted and no offense taken. It's a delicate topic.

The best solution I've found to eternal principals that are difficult: Take what you know and try to make some sense out of it, but accept that you could be completely wrong.

As Latter Day Saints, we have a VASTLY expanded view of the eternities, in comparison to what was available before. And we still have only the tiniest glimpse into it all. Any number of things are possible and very little is certain. For the most part, we'll just have to wait and see.

1 is a finite number. I think there's a right answer to the question as it relates to each individual when they are exalted by the Lord. There is either 1 to 1 or there is (x > 1) to 1. I leave it to God to sort out the rest.

One thing that you may find very interesting. You are not the first person to struggle with the notion of Polygamy in this dispensation. The first one was none other than Joseph Smith. The principal was revealed to him because he was earnestly inquiring of the Lord while translating the Bible but he did not make the revelation he received in response to his inquiry public for many years (probably about 11 years). The idea bothered him a great deal and I think he put it off for as long as he could.

What was his question? "Lord, how could you excuse these men in such an immoral practice? How can this be right?"

The answer was, "I'll explain it to you by having you live it." And Joseph Smith spent the next 11 years or so not instituting the practice. I think it bothered him a great deal.

The two next most famous practicers of polygamy were Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball. Both of them had an equally terrible time accepting the doctrine. I don't have time to go into those stories right at the moment. Their stories are extremely interesting as well.

I accept that polygyny was used in the church. I accept the possibility of it existing in the eternities. I point of this thread was to ask if polyandry would exist in the eternities as well as it seems to me it should (if polygyny exists).

It seems the number one reason people have for saying that polyandry WON'T exist eventually boils down to this idea of there being more exalted women than men.

Where does this idea come from?

[interalia]

Change, if you had a few minutes with Heavenly Mother, most of what you had written will alter your view my brother.

changed is a sister, btw. If I had a few moments with Heavenly anybody it would be bound to change my entire perspective as well. What you say seems to imply that if changed had a few minutes with Heavenly Mother that she would change her views to what? yours? someone else's?

[Hemidakota]

My deepest apology Changed.

[Just_A_Guy]

Joseph Smith made it very clear that it is impossible for children to get away from righteous parents, for they are bound to their parents through all eternity & nothing but the parents unrighteousness can break that tie.

Is this the quote you're thinking of?

The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father's heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.

Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1929, p. 110.

B.Y. taught the same for spouses, he said that it is impossible for a spouse to truely divorce or get away from a faithful spouse, though the world would allow it & he also gave divorces, but he said it is not a valid divorce & means nothing, as good as a blank piece of paper or a piece of your shirt.

I doubt that very strongly. If you can show me a quote, I'll reconsider my position.

[foreverafter]

Is this the quote you're thinking of?

Yes, & others also.

I doubt that very strongly. If you can show me a quote, I'll reconsider my position.

I gave the reference, but B.Y. was only one of many prophets to teach this. Anything less would make a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage & no woman in her right mind would risk her heart & her children if her husband could leave anytime for any reason & get away with it. God through prophets, has given women the guarantee that he won't allow this & so women are willing to marry & become vulnerable to men.

[foreverafter]

I knew someone who was sealed to their parents, parents were abusive, and they wanted to be unsealed from them. QUOTE]

If the parents were abusive then they automatically broke any sealing that they had with their children, unless they repented. So the children need not worry about being with abusive parents in the eternities.

[Faded]

I accept that polygyny was used in the church. I accept the possibility of it existing in the eternities. I point of this thread was to ask if polyandry would exist in the eternities as well as it seems to me it should (if polygyny exists).

It seems the number one reason people have for saying that polyandry WON'T exist eventually boils down to this idea of there being more exalted women than men.

Where does this idea come from?

I think it's just the same mathematical conclusion that I came to. There may be some revelation somewhere that explains the matter better, but none exists that I'm aware of. If the notion is true and more women are exalted then men, then we have the answer.

Since none of us mortals gets to dictate policy in the eternities, we'll just have to trust in Almighty and All-Knowing God and accept that no matter what, it'll be done perfectly and right.

I don't think there will be polyandry in the eternities because it has never been revealed the there will. I have no other basis than that.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Faded

[Vort]

I think it's just the same mathematical conclusion that I came to.

How do you respond to the mathematical conclusion I proposed exposing the flaw in your mathematical conclusion?

[Faded]

How do you respond to the mathematical conclusion I proposed exposing the flaw in your mathematical conclusion?

Missed it. What was it?

[foreverafter]

is my understanding that in heaven we will be brothers and sisters rather than parents and children...

No, we will definately be sealed together as families. We start our own eternal kingdom here on earth & our spouse & children will be ours through all eternity if we are righteous. It matters very much who we are sealed to. The prophets have warned that if we aren't righteous & keep our marriage together, we can lose our children & spouse & they will be given to another spouse or parents who are righteous. And we will be spouseless & childless in heaven & regret it for all eternity.

Edited March 19, 2009 by foreverafter

[interalia]

I think it's just the same mathematical conclusion that I came to. There may be some revelation somewhere that explains the matter better, but none exists that I'm aware of. If the notion is true and more women are exalted then men, then we have the answer.

Since none of us mortals gets to dictate policy in the eternities, we'll just have to trust in Almighty and All-Knowing God and accept that no matter what, it'll be done perfectly and right.

I don't think there will be polyandry in the eternities because it has never been revealed the there will. I have no other basis than that.

You are correct, there is no revelation for this currently. However, it is reasonable. Reasonable things can get revelations at future dates.

Someone could use the argument that it was revealed that African descended individuals would not receive the priesthood because it hadn't been revealed. Ultimately they did receive the priesthood. Of course, using MY logic that "just because it isn't revealed doesn't mean it couldn't be" could unleash a host of other bad ideas so we have to be careful with both.

However it was reasonable to believe that African-descended people could receive the priesthood and so was worth keeping an open mind about. I think it is likewise reasonable to believe there could be polyandry in the eternities as well.

So to my question about there being more righteous women than men in heaven, your answer is that you derived that idea from the fact you believed there would be polygyny in heaven and that there would have to be more women for men to have more than one eternal companion. Am I right?

I wonder what others base belief that there will be more women then men in heaven on? Perhaps this question alone deserves its own thread so as not to derail this one further.

[Faded]

Speak for yourself, nitwit. :)

Seriously, I like you, Faded, and I think you have many helpful ideas and insights. But in this, you're full of, well, let's just say baloney. These are poisonous falsehoods that I refuse to teach to my sons or daughters. "Sorry, son, but you know that you and your brothers are just by nature less righteous than your sisters." "Sorry, daughter, but your fate is to be mated to someone who is intrinsically inferior to you."

Toxic lies. I pity those who believe them.

Your reasoning is bogus, too. We know that children who die before the age of accountability are exalted, and we know that historically there are about 106 boys born for every 100 girls. Yet by the time they are 8 or 10, the numbers are the same. Why? Because boys die off faster than girls; they are more susceptible to disease and developmental disorders. Ergo, there will be a HUGE excess of men (i.e. dead baby boys) in the celestial kingdom.

Sort of blows your theory out of the water, huh?

Sounds like I need to just quit while I'm ahead. Apparently I'm just not very bright on this topic. At minimum, I'm offensive. So there's not point in my continuing with this thread.

[Maxel]

I wonder what others base belief that there will be more women then men in heaven on? Perhaps this question alone deserves its own thread so as not to derail this one further.

My first (and until now, only) post dealt with this topic a little bit. I think there are more righteous men than women (at least living on the earth today), but there is no disparity in spiritual power between a righteous man and a righteous woman. Neither sex is above the other in any sense, but the woman was created for the man (nevertheless, the man is created by the woman).

It is very, very possible this outlook is (highly) influenced by the fact I was basically raised by my older sister; my father was an unrighteous man who moved out of the house when I was 15. However, I think the general advice given to men and women in the church today reflects that reality. Perhaps, though, the difference can be instead attributed to different learning styles of the sexes: men respond more to hard-edged commands; women to gentle encouragement.

[Hemidakota]

I guess I am up side down with the stats in having 6 girls and 2 boys. :)

[interalia]

My first (and until now, only) post dealt with this topic a little bit. I think there are more righteous men than women (at least living on the earth today), but there is no disparity in spiritual power between a righteous man and a righteous woman. Neither sex is above the other in any sense, but the woman was created for the man (nevertheless, the man is created by the woman).

It is very, very possible this outlook is (highly) influenced by the fact I was basically raised by my older sister; my father was an unrighteous man who moved out of the house when I was 15. However, I think the general advice given to men and women in the church today reflects that reality. Perhaps, though, the difference can be instead attributed to different learning styles of the sexes: men respond more to hard-edged commands; women to gentle encouragement.

I thought it was, that the meek responded to more gentle encouragement, while the proud only responded to more hard-edged commands. There seems to be doctrinal evidence for this idea with many prophets saying they only use hard speaking because of the pride and stiffneckedness of the people. And we are supposed to use "gentleness and meekness" when advising others primarily (D&C 121).

I do not think this is a gender thing. I am a male (or so I'm told) and much prefer to be spoken to gently.

I appreciate your response though, Maxel.

[Maxel]

I thought it was, that the meek responded to more gentle encouragement, while the proud only responded to more hard-edged commands. There seems to be doctrinal evidence for this idea with many prophets saying they only use hard speaking because of the pride and stiffneckedness of the people. And we are supposed to use "gentleness and meekness" when advising others primarily (D&C 121).

I do not think this is a gender thing. I am a male (or so I'm told) and much prefer to be spoken to gently.

I appreciate your response though, Maxel.

You bring up a really, really good point. Generally speaking, I see women as meeker than men (although there are, of course, exceptions). That's completely my own opinion, though.

[rameumptom]

Brigham Young authorized at least one polyandrous marriage. A man was unable to have children, and so Brigham Young authorized his wife to be married to another man for time. They had children, who became the spiritual children of the first man (similar to Levirate marriages in the Bible). Brigham Young was very practical in these things, and I would not be surprised if God isn't as practical. If there were a reason for polyandry in the heavens, God would implement it.

[Just_A_Guy]

If the parents were abusive then they automatically broke any sealing that they had with their children, unless they repented. So the children need not worry about being with abusive parents in the eternities.

Something like this is what I'd been waiting for. From some of your other rhetoric, I'd gotten the impression that you believe people will--and should--remain sealed to abusive spouses/parents; and that rather than moving on a woman whose spouse has been beating her should should spend the rest of her mortal lifetime unmarried and pining away for her abusive husband.

[Hemidakota]

Speaking about polyandrous marriage, this could be found among the Buddhist Sherpas.

[Moksha]

It seems the number one reason people have for saying that polyandry WON'T exist eventually boils down to this idea of there being more exalted women than men.

Where does this idea come from?

Hope (or at least wishful thinking). Besides, women are less prone to violence and do not smoke as many cigars.

[StallionMcBeastly]

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.

From my understanding, there will no be polyandry. My understanding also is that God has multiple wives, and is not one of many husbands to a woman. God is the head and ruler of heaven.

Polygamy makes much more sense - one man can fertilize many women to produce many children. If a woman has many husbands, she can still only have one baby.

And no, women don't have the priesthood. We all have our roles.

My 2 cents.

Excuse the quick unorganized post.:)

[interalia]

From my understanding, there will no be polyandry. My understanding also is that God has multiple wives, and is not one of many husbands to a woman. God is the head and ruler of heaven.

Polygamy makes much more sense - one man can fertilize many women to produce many children. If a woman has many husbands, she can still only have one baby.

Only if you are only considering the way we humans in this mortal realm procreate, who knows if procreation has such limitations in the world to come.

And no, women don't have the priesthood. We all have our roles.

My 2 cents.

Excuse the quick unorganized post.:)

How do women perform their ordinances in the temple or do those not require the priesthood to perform? I'm trying not to say too much about the temple, but I think we are aware that on the woman's side, they must perform certain ordinances that men do not.

[deseretgov]

Holy Cow there's so much good stuf in this thread!

BUt about the more women/men than men/women in heaven, I'll throw a monkey wrench in your gears. We must also consider all the other planets in the universe. Surely the council in heaven wasn;t only for "earthlings" but for the inhabitants of every planet in God's universe. THere are just so many things we don't know that there is no way to pin down a specific reason for most things. We just have to trust in God.

Also I think the idea of adoption has merit. We know that God did not create us. We existed as intelligences before becoming God's spirit children. So got did not create us but adopted us

Also if we existed as an entity before becoming Spirit children. Our "birth" as spirit children somehow involves:

1. The formation of our Spirit Body

2. The "entrance" of us as intelligence into the Spirit Body.

So to know if there is any gestation we would need to know how a spirit body is formed. Is it formed how a physical body is formed? Or does Heavenly Father and Mother shape it out of spirit matter? Or do they activate the "Spirit Body-o-Matic"?

Personally I don't think how many wives one has determines how fast a person can create infinite number of spirit children. Remeber we are dealing with eternity. In eternity there is no time. There is no faster or sooner. Our application of time to eternity is irrelevant because the nature of eternity is one without time.

[rameumptom]

From my understanding, there will no be polyandry. My understanding also is that God has multiple wives, and is not one of many husbands to a woman. God is the head and ruler of heaven.

Polygamy makes much more sense - one man can fertilize many women to produce many children. If a woman has many husbands, she can still only have one baby.

And no, women don't have the priesthood. We all have our roles.

My 2 cents.

Excuse the quick unorganized post.:)

If God chooses to allow polyandry, who are we to argue it. As I mentioned before, Brigham Young admitted it under certain needs.

As for women and the priesthood, they actually DO hold the priesthood when they enter with their husbands into the new and everlasting order of the priesthood. Together they receive the Patriarchal Order of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Pres Packer explained it like this: the man has two keys. The first key opens up a vault door. Within the vault is a chest. The chest requires two keys. The man's second key fits one of the locks, while the woman holds the other key. Only together, in sharing the Patriarchal Priesthood, can any of us obtain all the blessings of heaven.

Within this priesthood, we have similar and different roles. Each of us are similar in seeking God through prayer, repentance, faith, and serving others. Both are different in some of the forms of service performed.

[MarginOfError]

If God chooses to allow polyandry, who are we to argue it. As I mentioned before, Brigham Young admitted it under certain needs.

As for women and the priesthood, they actually DO hold the priesthood when they enter with their husbands into the new and everlasting order of the priesthood. Together they receive the Patriarchal Order of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Pres Packer explained it like this: the man has two keys. The first key opens up a vault door. Within the vault is a chest. The chest requires two keys. The man's second key fits one of the locks, while the woman holds the other key. Only together, in sharing the Patriarchal Priesthood, can any of us obtain all the blessings of heaven.

Within this priesthood, we have similar and different roles. Each of us are similar in seeking God through prayer, repentance, faith, and serving others. Both are different in some of the forms of service performed.

rameumptom, I would love it if you could provide a citation for President Packer's comments. I've long held that women hold the priesthood and would like to add this to my arsenal of evidence.