Love and marriage

[Just_A_Guy]

Then kindly explain Samuel's behavior in choosing a king for Israel after the Lord's express manifestation that Israel not be governed by a king.

[MormonMama]

...but a man doesn't need to love a woman to marry her in the LDS faith if I'm understanding correctly.

A person does have to be in love with someone to marry them, period. I can think of more than one non-LDS couple who was married for reasons other than love.

However, current church teaching is that we should carefully choose our eternal companion, and they should be someone we love. What God will allow or encourage in the CK in regards to love relating to marriage is up to Him, and to my knowledge has not been explained to us thus far.

I don't understand your logic.

Well, I can't help you there. It seems as if you're having trouble understanding the logic of most people on here.

Before the time of Chirst, Jesus had not yet died for our sins.

What does that have to do with polygamy?

I don't agree that God commanded polygamy before Christ, though it is mentioned.

Well, there is the difference then. I DO believe that God commanded it and allowed it in certain situations, but not in others.

If God commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy under the threat of a sword, then it must be God's will that polygamy is what he wants, which is why I asked the question.

Who said anything about the command being "under the threat of a sword"?

As far as it being "God's will", there are a lot of things that are God's will that are not always commanded to us. Sometimes we (meaning mankind) are simply not able to abide by those commandments at that time. If Jewish dietary law was commanded by God in Biblical times, why do we not follow it today? Why was circumcision not required of Gentile converts in the early church? There are many commandments of God that are in force at some times but not at others. Polygamy is just one of them.

One of the tests the bible speaks on regarding whether or not a prophet is speaking for God, is that it will never change... regardless of political climate.

Sorry, that is not correct. If it were, then Christians in the early church would have to follow the same strict dietary laws given to the early Hebrews, they would have to be circumcized, etc.

God Himself is unchanging. That does not mean that the commandments He gives to His children do not ever change. The Bible has plenty of evidence of commandments being changed or abolished.

Edited September 16, 2009 by MormonMama

[thews]

Then kindly explain Samuel's behavior in choosing a king for Israel after the Lord's express manifestation that Israel not be governed by a king.

You claimed God changes his mind as political climate changes, and I stated one of the tests of a prophet of God, is that if he is in fact speaking God's words, those words will come true and be true forever. This thread is asking for the LDS version of God's view of marriage and i don't wish to engage you in a two-wrongs-make-a-right argument about a different topic.

Is the topic of sealed marriages to men already married off limits? I ask this sincerely, becuase it was brought up by a Mormon on another board, so I assume it's not. If not, are some of you married to more than one person, though not in a traditional polygamous sense, but in a spiritual one?

Thanks

[MormonMama]

You claimed God changes his mind as political climate changes, and I stated one of the tests of a prophet of God, is that if he is in fact speaking God's words, those words will come true and be true forever.

You are REALLY misunderstanding what is being said.

Currently, a man may be sealed to more than one wife in the temple, but NOT if he is still legally married to the previous wife. So if I man is sealed in the temple and later divorced or widowed, he can be sealed to another wife in the temple, even if his first sealing is still in effect.

[Thethuthinnang]

I can sympathize, I'm also someone who is somewhat troubled by the whole polygamy "business." It's a little weird to think of my husband gallivantin' around with a bunch of other wives in that big celestial kingdom in the sky. But I figure that things may indeed feel differently and make more sense once we're actually there...and I also think, as others stated, that not everyone necessarily has to do it, and perhaps those alive in times where it is not done are not the ones who will be doing it. Hard to say till we find out for sure. I'm not adding much new here, just wanted to say I can understand the uneasiness about it. :)

[foreverafter]

True Love is what makes marriage last forever & the sealing binding. Without True Love no marriage will be eternal. True Love has always been & still is very rare, especially in the 1800's while polygamy was being lived. Righteous men have True Love for their wife, the kind that never ends or gives up on her & he would rather die than cause pain to his wife in any way. He would put her wishes, needs, desires & happiness before his own in everything. And the righteous wife of such a man would do the same for him.

Polygamy is & has been throughout history, one of the worst of adulterous abominations & the severest of spouse abuses for 6000 years, except in very rare cases where God authorized only truly righteous men to live it. Having more than one wife or a new or different wife, is a natural man desire that wicked men almost always come to want. A righteous man would be repulsed at the thought of having another wife or leaving his wife or hurting his wife by taking another one.

Righteous men reluctantly do it only when God & their wife asks them to do so. Even when authorized, it is an Abrahamic sacrifice for the wife, & the man is commanded to hurt his wife by taking another wife, like Abraham was told to hurt & even kill, Issac, but the woman's pain & torture from plural marriage wasn't just for a moment, but usually for the rest of her life, even when her husband was righteous & lived it the least painful way he could & let her choose who & when the 2nd wife would be. For most women, polygamy is one of the most painful things a woman can go through in this life. Thus a righteous man would be so humble & submissive to a wife who went through so much for him. The pain from it all will be different in the next life though.

The 1st wife always came 1st, before any other wife because she made the biggest sacrifice in sharing her husband, whereas the other wife could have waited to be a 1st wife to some other man. The men couldn't date or look around for another spouse any more than the wife could, like Abraham, he accepted who his 1st wife, like Sarah, chose for him, someone she felt most comfortable with & could get along with, if she deemed he was even worthy of another wife, for only the wife usually knows if her husband is truly righteous & has True Love for her & would rather die than be unfaithful to her in thought, heart or body or hurt her feelings in any way. No woman is ever asked to give her husband another wife if she doesn't feel if he is truly righteous & worthy & loves & treats her as he should. Only a righteous man could live plural marriage correctly & be able to heal with his love the hurt he was commanded to inflict on her.

Plural marriage & the pain involved with it in the 1800's, accomplished a grand & vital purpose, that of waking up women, that probably could not be done in any other way, for even 6000 years of male domination didn't do it. The pain of Plural Marriage finally woke up women to their true power, rights & equal station in marriage & society, after wrongfully suffering, accepting or tolerating abuse by men for 6000 years.

Only when women started expecting respect & faithfulness from their husbands & rejecting the idea that they were in anyway lesser than their husbands or had less power & rights in marriage or society, could God bring forth his Church & the Kingdom of Zion. As soon as women started waking up & were given an equal vote in society & were moving on to total equality, God took away painful plural marriage. If God had really wanted the principle to remain on the earth & if men were worthy of it, he could have found a way for it to keep going.

Also, Plural Marriage is one of the promised blessings of Abraham in the eternities, for men & women who are truly righteous. In the eternities when men are able to honor women's full equality in all things, righteous women will also receive all these blessings & rights of Abraham as much as men have & will.

"The Lord offers to his daughters every spiritual gift & blessing that can be obtained by his sons."

Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith. CR Apr. 1970.

Edited September 16, 2009 by foreverafter

[Just_A_Guy]

You claimed God changes his mind as political climate changes,

No; I said He "made an allowance" and then provided another biblical example where He did exactly that. But by all means, yes; let's stay on-topic.

Is the topic of sealed marriages to men already married off limits? I ask this sincerely, becuase it was brought up by a Mormon on another board, so I assume it's not. If not, are some of you married to more than one person, though not in a traditional polygamous sense, but in a spiritual one?

Thanks

I don't think it's off-limits, but as I am a monogamist I'll have to defer to others.

[thews]

A person does have to be in love with someone to marry them, period. I can think of more than one non-LDS couple who was married for reasons other than love.

So you are saying Joseph Smith was in love with 38 women?

However, current church teaching is that we should carefully choose our eternal companion, and they should be someone we love. What God will allow or encourage in the CK in regards to love relating to marriage is up to Him, and to my knowledge has not been explained to us thus far.

I'm asking this because someone said on another board (an LDS member) he was married to more than one woman in the temple, but it was not a tradtional marriage. This is the crux of the question, because "marriage" to me means the love between one man and one woman, rather than one many and many wives (I'm referring to the afterlife).

Well, I can't help you there. It seems as if you're having trouble understanding the logic of most people on here.

Likewise

What does that have to do with polygamy?

Well, there is the difference then. I DO believe that God commanded it and allowed it in certain situations, but not in others.

My pointis that once Jesus died for our sins, we start from there. Going back in time before Jesus Christ to justify an act 1800 years later is what doesn't make sense to me.

Who said anything about the command being "under the threat of a sword"?

When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine."

- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, "Plural Marriage for the Righteous Only-Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting", Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29

As far as it being "God's will", there are a lot of things that are God's will that are not always commanded to us. Sometimes we (meaning mankind) are simply not able to abide by those commandments at that time. If Jewish dietary law was commanded by God in Biblical times, why do we not follow it today? Why was circumcision not required of Gentile converts in the early church? There are many commandments of God that are in force at some times but not at others. Polygamy is just one of them.

Comparing diet and circumcision to polygamy is a bit of a reach don't you think?

Sorry, that is not correct. If it were, then Christians in the early church would have to follow the same strict dietary laws given to the early Hebrews, they would have to be circumcized, etc.

Diet and scripture changes that allow men to have multiple wives are not the same. This is a big rationalization IMO.

God Himself is unchanging. That does not mean that the commandments He gives to His children do not ever change. The Bible has plenty of evidence of commandments being changed or abolished.

God is perfect and God's word will stand the test of time and always be true... always. I disagree that the bible changes. Translation changes can be argued, but not scripture content.

[foreverafter]

Currently, a man may be sealed to more than one wife in the temple, but NOT if he is still legally married to the previous wife. So if I man is sealed in the temple and later divorced or widowed, he can be sealed to another wife in the temple, even if his first sealing is still in effect.

It is impossible for a man to be truly sealed eternally to more than one living woman at a time. For he can't be loving & faithful to the 1st if he is dating or married to the 2nd. Even though after divorce they may keep the sealing intact with the 1st wife, it doesn't mean he is really still sealed to her. They keep the sealing intact in case he was not justified in the divorce & she may want him back someday in this life or the next or until she may want to be sealed to someone else. But when he moves on to another woman he loses his rights & claim to the 1st wife.

If a man dates or remarries it automatically breaks his rights & sealing to his 1st wife, cause he proves himself unfaithful to her, even though it hasn't been done on paper yet. To have any sealing effective one must be true & faithful to only that spouse, & dating, let alone remarriage would be being unfaithful to his 1st wife.

Edited September 16, 2009 by foreverafter

[Just_A_Guy]

My pointis that once Jesus died for our sins, we start from there. Going back in time before Jesus Christ to justify an act 1800 years later is what doesn't make sense to me.

Why? Was Jesus not God until after His death and resurrection? Was Jesus' birth not something that was planned from before the creation of the world?

Diet and scripture changes that allow men to have multiple wives are not the same. This is a big rationalization IMO.

So, your point has changed from Jesus can't change to Jesus can't change over the BIG stuff, and I am the one who decides what is "big". Got it.

[Thethuthinnang]

God is perfect and God's word will stand the test of time and always be true... always. I disagree that the bible changes. Translation changes can be argued, but not scripture content.

I think what God says is always true, however, it may not always APPLY. It depends on the conditions of the time period. God doesn't make mistakes, but He makes changes as they are needed as conditions on Earth change.

[MormonMama]

So you are saying Joseph Smith was in love with 38 women?

How did you even extrapolate that from what I said? How does me saying that people don't have to be in love to get married suddenly become me saying that Joseph loved 38 women? Are you making this stuff up as you go along or what?

I'm asking this because someone said on another board (an LDS member) he was married to more than one woman in the temple, but it was not a tradtional marriage. This is the crux of the question, because "marriage" to me means the love between one man and one woman, rather than one many and many wives (I'm referring to the afterlife).

Again, I don't see what the above quote has to do with the statement I made that you responded to.

Likewise

Huh? I'm not having trouble understanding anyone but you. Maybe if your responses actually matched the statements you were responding to, but you just go off in totally different directions.

My pointis that once Jesus died for our sins, we start from there. Going back in time before Jesus Christ to justify an act 1800 years later is what doesn't make sense to me.

You still are not making any sense with this. What does Christ's death have to do with polygamy practiced 1800 years later, as authorized by God?

Comparing diet and circumcision to polygamy is a bit of a reach don't you think?

No, it isn't. A commandment of God is a commandment of God.

Diet and scripture changes that allow men to have multiple wives are not the same. This is a big rationalization IMO.

What God commands, he commands. We don't have any right to decide which commandment is more important than another, or which ones we can follow and which ones we can ignore.

God is perfect and God's word will stand the test of time and always be true... always. I disagree that the bible changes. Translation changes can be argued, but not scripture content.

Again, you're going off on a tangent. I already said that God does not change. I never said the Bible changed either. Please stop making things up and trying to claim someone else said it. You said yourself, the Bible has not changed. So why are there instances in the Bible where polygamy is sanctioned by God and other instances in the Bible where He forbids it? Hmmm?

It is impossible for a man to be truly sealed eternally to more than one living woman at a time. For he can't be loving & faithful to the 1st if he is dating or married to the 2nd. Even though after divorce they may keep the sealing intact with the 1st wife, it doesn't mean he is really still sealed to her. They keep the sealing intact in case he was not justified in the divorce & she may want him back someday in this life or the next or until she may want to be sealed to someone else. But when he moves on to another woman he loses his rights & claim to the 1st wife.

This seems to assume that the divorce was the man's fault. What if his wife left him?

The sealing IS still intact, because the wife might repent someday. When my best friend's husband left her for another woman, her sealing remained intact, in case he repented later on. When she remarried years later, she actually had to have the sealing canceled. So even though her husband had left her AND the church by then, her sealing was still considered to be in force.

If a man dates or remarries it automatically breaks his rights & sealing to his 1st wife, cause he proves himself unfaithful to her, even though it hasn't been done on paper yet. To have any sealing effective one must be true & faithful to only that spouse, & dating, let alone remarriage would be being unfaithful to his 1st wife.

Sorry, you are incorrect. God is the only one who can judge the human heart, so He may consider the sealing invalid, but the church maintains it is intact unless steps are taken to officially cancel it (and that has to be approved).

[Elphaba]

Richard Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling has a very interesting explanation as to why Joseph participated in "Celestial Marriage," that made me think differently about it.

From RSR, p. 326:

Joseph did not explain plural marriage as a love match, or even companionship. Only slight hints of romance found their way into his proposals. He understood polygamy as a religious ritual. Levi Hancock remember the Prophet telling him in 1832: "Brother Levi, the Lord has revealed to me that it is His will that Righteous Men shall take Righteous women even a plurality of Wives that a Righteous Man may be sent forth upon the earth prepatory to the ushehing in of the Reign of the Millenial Reigh of Our Redeemer. As Joseph described the practice to Hancock, plural marriage had the millenial purpose of fashioning a righteous generation on the eve of the Second Coming.

From RSR, p. 439:

The only answer seems to be the explanation Joseph gave when he asked a woman for her consent: they and their families would benefit spiritually from a close tie with the Prophet. Joseph told a prospective wife that submitting to plural marriage would "ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father's household & all your kindred. A father who gave his daughter to the Prophet as a plural wife was assured the marriage "shall be crowned upon your heads with honor and immortality and eternal life to all of your household both young and old. The relationship would bear fruit in the afterlife. There is no certain evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with any of the wives who were married to other men. They married because Joseph's kingdom grew with the size of his family, and those bonded to that family would be exalted with him. (bold mine)

Joseph was especially content and relaxed around his family, and my sense is that he was ensuring a large family for himself through the eternities that would benefit all of them.

I do believe there is enough evidence to demonstrate he did have sexual relations with at least a few of his wives. But again, his relationships with them were not marriages as we think of them today.

Now, Emma! Lord almighty . . . that is a story for another day!

Elphaba

[thews]

Why? Was Jesus not God until after His death and resurrection? Was Jesus' birth not something that was planned from before the creation of the world?

See things as you wish and use whatever timeline suits you. As a Christian, my timeline starts after Jesus died for our sins.

So, your point has changed from Jesus can't change to Jesus can't change over the BIG stuff, and I am the one who decides what is "big". Got it.

No. Watering down polygamy and comparing it to changes in diet is absurd IMO. We're talking about Joseph Smith marrying many women and other men's wives. This is the Mormon prophet of God, speaking for God, so the question is quite valid. If you believe in what Joseph Smith said regarding what God wants, then in the Mormon version of heaven polygamy is required, and a woman can expect to share her husband, while a man can expect to have many wives. This isn't my opinion, but cannonized doctrrine in the D&C... would you agree?

[Hemidakota]

Coming to the defense of my brother here [Joseph Smith] spend more time in reading his journal and seek the real truth vice opinions of self or others. The journal can be purchased online now from Deseret Books. An insight to the man's life.

[thews]

How did you even extrapolate that from what I said? How does me saying that people don't have to be in love to get married suddenly become me saying that Joseph loved 38 women? Are you making this stuff up as you go along or what?

You said love was required in a Mormon marriage. Joseph Smith hasd 38 wives. Using what you said, he should be in love with all 38 women. Where is my logic flawed?

Again, I don't see what the above quote has to do with the statement I made that you responded to.

It referenced the basis for the question. As I understand it, Mormon men marry multiple wives, while only having one earthy "wife." If that is the case, love is not required for Mormon marriage.

Huh? I'm not having trouble understanding anyone but you. Maybe if your responses actually matched the statements you were responding to, but you just go off in totally different directions.

I'm being very specific. I understand polygamy/polyandary is a sesitive subject, but the question centers on whether or not love is required for a Mormon marriage if women can expect to share their husbands in the afterlife.

You still are not making any sense with this. What does Christ's death have to do with polygamy practiced 1800 years later, as authorized by God?

Because I think Joseph Smith was wrong, and polygamy/polyandary are fundamentally wrong. Do you believe polygamy/polyandary are morally justified at any time?

No, it isn't. A commandment of God is a commandment of God.

If that's what you believe, then ok... I don't. Diet changes based on what's healthy because of food storage and adultery are two very vastly different things. You believe polygamy/polyandary was cammanded by God, but I don't.

What God commands, he commands. We don't have any right to decide which commandment is more important than another, or which ones we can follow and which ones we can ignore.

You believe God's will encompasses polygamy/polyandary and I don't, which is where this supposed analogy is being argued. OK... believe what you do, but I know in my heart polygamy/polyandary is wrong.

Again, you're going off on a tangent. I already said that God does not change. I never said the Bible changed either. Please stop making things up and trying to claim someone else said it. You said yourself, the Bible has not changed. So why are there instances in the Bible where polygamy is sanctioned by God and other instances in the Bible where He forbids it? Hmmm?

If you believe God doesn't change, then why don't Mormon practice polygamy/polyandry today? I believe you are twisting what I'm saying and not answering the questions asked.

Again, do you believe polygamy/polyardry is morally justified for any reason?

[Just_A_Guy]

See things as you wish and use whatever timeline suits you. As a Christian, my timeline starts after Jesus died for our sins.

But I thought Christians believed Jesus has existed eternally?

No. Watering down polygamy and comparing it to changes in diet is absurd IMO.

Sez you.

If you believe in what Joseph Smith said regarding what God wants, then in the Mormon version of heaven polygamy is required, and a woman can expect to share her husband, while a man can expect to have many wives.

Umm, no; I can quite easily believe that God wanted it then, deeming the circumstances appropriate; but does not "want" it now.

There are statements from John Taylor that allegedly point to mandatory polygamy in heaven, but I personally think you have to view the statements in their historical context. At any rate, they are not canonized. Moreover, I am unaware of any such statements from Joseph Smith himself.

This isn't my opinion, but cannonized doctrrine in the D&C... would you agree?

I won't go the Joe Wilson route; but I will say that you ought to actually open the D&C before you go making strident declarations like that.

[pam]

Ummm...just to soften this a bit. Everytime I see the name of this thread on the forum menu...I want to start singing; *Love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage."

Okay never mind...carry on.

[Generally_Me]

Again, do you believe polygamy/polyardry is morally justified for any reason?

Yes. Yes I do.

[Elphaba]

Coming to the defense of my brother here [Joseph Smith] spend more time in reading his journal and seek the real truth vice opinions of self or others. The journal can be purchased online now from Deseret Books. An insight to the man's life.

Where do you get the idea he spent a lot of time reading his journal? (He had a few of them by the Nauvoo period.`)

He would not have had time for that much journal reading. I think we're very lucky that he did write them (via a scribe) at all.

I'm not saying he never read them, as we all read our journals from time to time. But time is the key here, and it's something Joseph had very little of, especially in the tumultuous period in Nauvoo that led to is cold-blooded murder.

I must say I would love to read those journals. My birthday is a couple of months away--Maybe I'll leave hints around the house about how amazing it is that DB has printed copies of his journals that we can read today--especially on my birthday! Will that work?

Elphaba

Edited September 18, 2009 by Elphaba