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

[Hemidakota]

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

If we look closer in Genesis, there is a reasoning to this occurring [story being told] first since both were Adams and not just Adam and Eve. Adam meaning first human, not just male or female.

[Hemidakota]

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

As Elder B. H. Roberts stated, "the mystery lies in the rib story".

[Hemidakota]

And who ensured they were [temple marriage] sealed together? In the garden or outside of the garden? Food for thought in learning.

[interalia]

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.

...

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...

Faded, I apologize. I didn't mean to discredit your beliefs. Just because I don't understand something doesn't give me the right to question it so derisively. I honestly do not believe that the church is sexist - I just truly do not understand where some of the ideas concerning men and women come from. I'd hate to think that either sex will not have all the same opportunities. This is why polyandry makes sense to me.

Oh and I agree with your mathematical logic that poly-anything would seem unnecessary if there were equal numbers of men and women, however I think that this premise might not be correct. Thing about it this way: think of there being an eternal number of men and women in heaven. When the numbers of men and women approach infinity, then anything is possible, polyandry, polygyny, etc.

Edited March 19, 2009 by interalia

[Hemidakota]

Abraham account was before Moses and what ever 'bread crumbs' we received by the Prophet Joseph Smith. :)

We are missing those accounts from Adam to Noah that was passed down through the patriarchs until it was given to Abraham.

[Hemidakota]

Faded, I apologize. I didn't mean to discredit your beliefs. Just because I don't understand something doesn't give me the right to question it so derisively. I honestly do not believe that the church is sexist - I just truly do not understand where some of the ideas concerning men and women come from. I'd hate to think that either sex will not have all the same opportunities. This is why polyandry makes sense to me.

Oh and I agree with your mathematical logic that poly-anything would seem unnecessary if there were equal numbers of men and women, however I think that this premise might not be correct. Thing about it this way: think of there being an eternal number of men and women in heaven. When the numbers of men and women approach infinity, then anything is possible, polyandry, polygyny, etc.

Premise is no on equality with the sexes with regards to females having more than one companion, is primarily due to the amount of males that will fail in this mortality and not enough for those faithful females who deserve the eternal rewards.

[Vort]

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.

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?

[interalia]

Premise is no on equality with the sexes with regards to females having more than one companion, is primarily due to the amount of males that will fail in this mortality and not enough for those faithful females who deserve the eternal rewards.

Let's say that for whatever reason there will be more women than men in Heaven. (And for the life of me will SOMEONE tell me the basis for this idea?!)

Again if we assume there are infinite males in the eternities - or a fresh batch of them when the next set of spirits in mortality is over - then it doesn't matter - worthy men will abound.

Edited March 19, 2009 by interalia

[Vort]

Let's say that for whatever reason there will be more women than men in Heaven. (And for the life of me will SOMEONE tell me the basis for this idea?!)

Hatred toward men and dismissive patronization toward women.

Again if we assume there are infinite males in the eternities - or a fresh batch of them when the next set of spirits in mortality is over - then it doesn't matter - worthy men will abound.

Sorry, you're talking entirely too much sense to be part of this thread.

[Hemidakota]

Not in comparison with faithful women. Spend the time in reading what Isaiah foreseen and what the Prophet Joseph Smith related. It simply will not happen.

[Vort]

Men are the ones who need a helper - not women. We don't need a helper, you do.

Ah, yes. A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

Behold the fruits of the hatred of males. Just keep teaching your daughters that men are intrinsically inferior to them, and pretty soon an entire generation of women will grow up saying such things.

Oh, wait. We're already there.

[Just_A_Guy]

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?

Well, "marital equality" (EDIT: if by that you mean "gay marriage") is certainly contrary to the order of Heaven (assuming you accept the Mormon ideal of Heaven as explained by the Mormon leadership past and present). Democracy is not a new concept; it's just that no one's been able to make it work over the long term until now (and it's certainly not the order of Heaven, in any event). Similarly, universal education is nice in the here-and-now--but, in its current form as we know it, not necessarily an essential element of the eternities.

Does the continuity of practice througout history lend credence to oposition or suspicion, despite their being merits in such concepts,

Not per se, no; it certainly doesn't end the discussion. But it does challenge the assumption that our twenty-first-century ideas are some kind of universal "truth-standard" that God always wanted mankind to be living.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Hemidakota]

Ah, yes. A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.

Behold the fruits of the hatred of males. Just keep teaching your daughters that men are intrinsically inferior to them, and pretty soon an entire generation of women will grow up saying such things.

Oh, wait. We're already there.

A time when the LAUGH BUTTON is needed. Thanks for the added humor.

[Just_A_Guy]

Eve was named "mother" long before she was prego

Not under Adam-God.

It is symbolic of adoption, Sarah was barren

Sarah was not barren. Isaac was her natural son. I pointed this out to you in another recent thread. She is not, never was, and never will be considered the "mother" of Hagar's children (Ishmael et seq).

Edited March 19, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Hemidakota]

Changed, an interesting assumption about [polygamy] patriarchal order of marriage.

[foreverafter]

Our modern Prophets have finally revealed that a husband & wife are "Co-Presidents"in the marriage (as Elder Perry said in GC), each with equal authority, power, station, rights & veto power. Joseph F. Smith said women will be offered the same blessings as men in the eternities. And if & because women have been more righteous, (if even in just bearing children & that Christ-like sacrifice that the prophet says men can never repay), women will thus have earned even more of the "Blessings of Abraham" than men, like houses, lands, children, spouses, parents, etc. So if there will be more men in heaven, because more have died young, that makes more sense since women must be rewarded accordingly for their righteousness. Most things about women & their eternal blessings have yet to be revealed. Just like we know very little about our Heavenly Mother.

While marital equality is a requirement for righteousness here on earth, the husband is required to 1st prove himself by submitting himself & his life to serving & protecting his wife from all harm & pain & neglect, especially from himself, so his wife will be able to trust him & want to give her love & submission in return. The prophets have said over & over that men must earn & be worthy of the love of their wife if they want to have it.

[Just_A_Guy]

It is about the agency of children.

I disagree.

Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 195:

We understand that we are to be made kings and priests unto God; now if I be made the king and lawgiver to my family, and if I have many sons, I shall become the father of many fathers, for they will have sons, and their sons will have sons, and so on, from generation to generation, and, in this way, I may become the father of many fathers, or the king of many kings. This will constitute every man a prince, king, lord, or whatever the Father sees fit to confer upon us.

In this way we can become king of kings, and lord of lords, or father of fathers, or prince of princes, and this is the only course, for another man is not going to raise up a kingdom for you

If a worthy couple's kids bail out on them and want to be part of my lineage instead, that's a complete violation of the principle Brigham Young is teaching above. One cannot build a kingdom by wooing (poaching?) kids away from other worthy couples.

Edited March 19, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Hemidakota]

You know, Abraham had more than one wife Change.

[Vort]

And if & because women have been more righteous, (if even in just bearing children & that Christ-like sacrifice that the prophet says men can never repay)

Bearing children == being righteous?

Men need to "repay" women for childbirth?

Strange new doctrines, indeed.

[Hemidakota]

Our modern Prophets have finally revealed that a husband & wife are "Co-Presidents"in the marriage (as Elder Perry said in GC), each with equal authority, power, station, rights & veto power. Joseph F. Smith said women will be offered the same blessings as men in the eternities. And if & because women have been more righteous, (if even in just bearing children & that Christ-like sacrifice that the prophet says men can never repay), women will thus have earned even more of the "Blessings of Abraham" than men, like houses, lands, children, spouses, parents, etc. So if there will be more men in heaven, because more have died young, that makes more sense since women must be rewarded accordingly for their righteousness. Most things about women & their eternal blessings have yet to be revealed. Just like we know very little about our Heavenly Mother.

While marital equality is a requirement for righteousness here on earth, the husband is required to 1st prove himself by submitting himself & his life to serving & protecting his wife from all harm & pain & neglect, especially from himself, so his wife will be able to trust him & want to give her love & submission in return. The prophets have said over & over that men must earn & be worthy of the love of their wife if they want to have it.

Let me correct something here, we "CAN KNOW" if we had the desire to do so and the Godhead allows it.

[Faded]

Faded, I apologize. I didn't mean to discredit your beliefs. Just because I don't understand something doesn't give me the right to question it so derisively. I honestly do not believe that the church is sexist - I just truly do not understand where some of the ideas concerning men and women come from. I'd hate to think that either sex will not have all the same opportunities. This is why polyandry makes sense to me.

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.

Oh and I agree with your mathematical logic that poly-anything would seem unnecessary if there were equal numbers of men and women, however I think that this premise might not be correct. Thing about it this way: think of there being an eternal number of men and women in heaven. When the numbers of men and women approach infinity, then anything is possible, polyandry, polygyny, etc.

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.

Doctrine and Covenants 132: 1-3

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

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.

[Hemidakota]

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

[Just_A_Guy]

Changed--

I still disagree with your apparent disdain for pregnancy and natural conception, but I'm starting to see a little more where you're coming from. Thank you for your patience.

[Hemidakota]

I think HM is barren by choice - so that kids have a choice of who to adopt them. They don't have kids through prego - they have them with adoption. Other people bear them (handmaids) They adopt who wants to be adopted.

clear as mud?

Not even...read my last remarks.

Let me remind you, those handmaids who had offspring are sealed to Abraham.

[foreverafter]

If a worthy couple's kids bail out on them and want to be part of my lineage instead, that's a complete violation of the principle Brigham Young is teaching above. One cannot build a kingdom by wooing (poaching?) kids away from other worthy couples.

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.

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. You are still married (that's why it's adultery the prophets say) & there is no such thing as divorcing a faithful spouse, only the faithful spouse can decide leave a wicked spouse & to end the marriage or not. He would say this to all the people coming to him for divorces, cause he was so disgusted at it all & wanted them to know it meant nothing, except that they will have to answer for it all. (See Journal of Discourses #17 for reference)

Edited March 19, 2009 by foreverafter