Your thoughts on Desiring multiple wives

[pam]

Actually Ben..I would be a Ma not a Pa. But that is the way I have always understood it as well. I was just trying to find something official to be able to link to.

[BenRaines]

It is on a case by case basis from the First Presidency. Not a lot of books or manuals that go in to it in detail.

Typo corrected.

Ben Raines

[pam]

Just wanted my ducks in a row should someone ask for a reference.

[BenRaines]

Multiple wives? Sheesh. One more to be down at the river washing the clothes on the rocks. :)

Ben Raines

[Moksha]

What if #1 wife said no but I was commanded to?

I would have to evaluate whether or not is was just my flaming sword acting up again.

[pam]

Multiple wives? Sheesh. One more to be down at the river washing the clothes on the rocks. :)

Ben Raines

You still remember that after all these years.

[MrsAri]

Yes...clearly they did and on some level we still do......will women be sealed to more than one husband? Don't think that's part of the program. I haven't seen that in the biblical record or during the plural marriage years of the church. Can a woman be sealed to two different husbands after one is deceased? I guess.....but I think they can be with only one in the Eternities.

So this is what I don't understand...why call it polygamy, if the wife is disallowed to marry more than one man? Why can men be sealed to more than one wife, but the wife may only be with one husband for eternity?

[deseretgov]

So this is what I don't understand...why call it polygamy, if the wife is disallowed to marry more than one man? Why can men be sealed to more than one wife, but the wife may only be with one husband for eternity?

I think the more correct term for the principle is "Plural Marriage." But "Polygamy" is shorter.

[Compassionate]

If you look real close at history, polygamy has always existed as an eternal law. It is through mans disobediance that it became suspended. Once it is conducted outside of the laws of God, it has lost it's eternal goal. So when people state that the manifesto was given and the revelation because of the threat of the government, they do not understand the law of God. If we really understand what was explained to Joseph when he inquired about the multiple wives of former prophets, he was told that with the explaination ,would come responsibility. He would be required to live the law, as would others inquiring about it. It was not designed for everyone, only those willing to live it within the bounderies the Lord established. If we look at the history of the church it got a little out of control. There were marriages being conducted without sanction and priesthood holders not living the eternal law as explained. So the Lord used the government as a manner in which to suspend the practice. It was done, because we couldn't live it. Like the Israelites and moses they could'nt do it so they recieved a lessor law. The saints in Missouri were not doing what was commanded, so they lost everything they had, the Lord caused it to happen. We also lost the United Order through selfishness and disobediance.

I think it has alot to do with unrighteous dominion as explained in the 121 section of the D&C.

So this is my opinion.

[Justice]

Why can men be sealed to more than one wife, but the wife may only be with one husband for eternity?

There are things in nature, maybe even timings, that suggest possible evidence. :)

I have a very hard time with it as well. But, I always fall back on the fact that God's ways are not man's ways, and that as long as we are imperfect and impure we can't understand. I just try not to dwell on it. I figure I'll cross that bridge when it comes, and hopefully I'll be better prepared by then.

[Bini]

There are things in nature, maybe even timings, that suggest possible evidence. :)

I have a very hard time with it as well. But, I always fall back on the fact that God's ways are not man's ways, and that as long as we are imperfect and impure we can't understand. I just try not to dwell on it. I figure I'll cross that bridge when it comes, and hopefully I'll be better prepared by then.

I'm basically just coming back to the Church and don't feel that I'll ever be better prepared for such concept as "plural marriage" or "polygamy"..

At least, I know that in this lifetime my husband couldn't handle another woman :Þ Or would want to!

[HEthePrimate]

Do you have a reference for that? How do you know those were his exact thoughts?

Ok, it wasn't only Brigham Young, but several of the early brethren. Here are some quotes and references:

Polygamy’s superiority over monogamy—Eugenics

“The history of the world goes to prove that the practice of this principle, even by nations ignorant of the Gospel, has resulted in greater good to them than the practice of monogamy or the one-wife system in the so-called Christian nations….

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a monogamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her….

“Rome…was overwhelmed, not by another monogamic race, but by the vigorous polygamic hordes from the north….

“I have had it quoted to me many times that no great nations ever practiced plural marriage. They who make such an assertion are utterly ignorant of history. What nations have left the deepest impress on the history of our race? Those which have practiced plurality of marriage” (George Q. Cannon, JD, Vol. 13, p. 202-203).

Polygamy keeps males from having illicit sexual relations--Eugenics

“We are all, both men and women, physiologists enough to know that the procreative powers of man endure much longer than those of woman. Granting, as some assert, that an equal number of the sexes exist, what would this lead to? Man must practice that which is vile and low [prostitution] or submit to a system of repression [abstinence]” (George Q. Cannon, JD, Vol. 13, p. 206).

Polygamy prevents prostitution--Eugenics

“How is this [whoredom, adultery, and fornication] to be prevented? For we have got a fallen nature to grapple with. It is to be prevented in the way the Lord devised in ancient times; that is, by giving to His faithful servants a plurality of wives” (Orson Pratt, JD, Vol. 1, p. 62).

“Monogamy…is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers”—Anti Monogomy

Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. That empire was founded on the banks of the Tiber by wandering brigands. When these robbers founded the city of Rome, it was evident to them that their success in attaining a balance of power with their neighbours (sic), depended upon introducing females into their body politic, so they stole them from the Sabines, who were near neighbours. The scarcity of women gave existence to laws restricting one wife to one man. Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers” (Brigham Young, July 6, 1862, JD, Vol. 9, p. 322).

“Those who are acquainted with the history of the world are not ignorant that polygamy has always been the general rule and monogamy the exception. Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious” (Brigham Young, June 18, 1865, JD, Vol. 11, p. 127-128).

[MrsAri]

I think the more correct term for the principle is "Plural Marriage." But "Polygamy" is shorter.

As polygamy was practiced in those days, the actual correct term is polygyny.

[MrsAri]

I'm basically just coming back to the Church and don't feel that I'll ever be better prepared for such concept as "plural marriage" or "polygamy"..

At least, I know that in this lifetime my husband couldn't handle another woman :Þ Or would want to!

I've spoken to alot of LDS women about this subject, and not one agrees with this concept. Not to worry!

[Tarnished]

I suppose for me the idea of taking multiple wives is a bit too much for me. It always seems that when the subject comes up that the wives are spoken of much like items. As a woman I hate being viewed as a thing and not a person. Too often in history women have been viewed as things. We are not things though we are people, with our own thoughts our own feelings and our own sins and needs for repentance. The discussion could almost be about televisions. What are your thoughts about desiring multiple televisions? Is it good or bad to desire multiple televisions? Do you have enough time to watch or use multiple televisions?

As I think it was Beefche that mentioned earlier in this thread. This is not a law that we currently have to live (thank goodness) and since it is not why put so much worry and discussion into it. Focus on the laws we currently have to live and stop spending energy on those that we don't.

Edited September 25, 2009 by Tarnished
spelling

[deseretgov]

As polygamy was practiced in those days, the actual correct term is polygyny.

So the term polygamy isn't really an incorrect term to use in reference to Plural Marriage. Also I can never remember how to spell polygyny.

[Generally_Me]

I've thought of this before. If I die first and have to share the husman with whomever he remarries (though he swears he never will) I suppose I won't mind so much. I mean, I'll have someone to clean the stardust off the furniture and prevent the children from beating the crap from vipers, while I get to sit off to one side and read to the well-behaved ones....

There will be Dr. Seuss books in the afterlife, right? Heck, probably extended versions written by him in the post-life experience...Imagine how much fun he'll have with the word "Kolob"

[pam]

You could probably even have him tell his stories in person.

[Generally_Me]

That's plan "b" if there's no second wife to handle the homefront and I have to actually work

[pam]

That's plan "b" if there's no second wife to handle the homefront and I have to actually work

hahahahaha

[MrsAri]

So the term polygamy isn't really an incorrect term to use in reference to Plural Marriage. Also I can never remember how to spell polygyny.

Haha... well, you spelled it right. I think I did, but not sure now.

Anyway, my feeling is that God would not humiliate His daughters in this way. I think it's wrong, and I ain't goin' there!

[Moksha]

“Rome…was overwhelmed, not by another monogamic race, but by the vigorous polygamic hordes from the north….

Are you sure this wasn't due to having three arms as a result of in-breeding. By the way, is the claim that the Vandals, Huns or Visigoths were polygamists documented in any history book?

[HEthePrimate]

Are you sure this wasn't due to having three arms as a result of in-breeding. By the way, is the claim that the Vandals, Huns or Visigoths were polygamists documented in any history book?

Good question! That would be interesting to look into. Wonder what G.Q. Cannon's sources were...

Live long and prosper,

HEP

[Moksha]

Good question! That would be interesting to look into. Wonder what G.Q. Cannon's sources were...

Live long and prosper,

HEP

I looked it up. It appears that Attila the Hun was indeed a polygamist as were the many wealthy Huns. The Visigoths were not. The only hits I got about Vandals and polygamy, involved acts of vandalism.

Still, I suppose there is nothing wrong with invoking the barbarian destroyer Attila the Hun as the strength at the base of the pillar of polygamy. After all, he stood apart from Western Tradition.

Now here is an interesting thought, the sister wives of Attila were so attractive that they were the original "Hunnies".

:)

[MrsAri]

Just a thought... since polygamy is against the law, and those who practice it within the Church are excommunicated, is desiring multiple wives a sin?