Your thoughts on Desiring multiple wives

[Lorenzo]

It's only against the law in some places. So it might be a sin in, say, the United States, a burden in Saudi Arabie, a challenge in Nigeria, and a blessing in India, three places where it is allowed.

The Lord's Anointed have not yet called for church courts against those who merely think of a sin, so desiring something without thinking or doing anything to violate the Law is okay. For example, I would like to eat more, but that would kill me. Just wanting to hasn't killed me yet, but doing it would. Wanting polygamy, blood atonement (animal sacrifice), or anything else to be restored, isn't a sin. It is when we act on our desires that we sometimes get in trouble.

[MrsAri]

Do members of the Church practice polygamy in other countries? If so, would anyone who advocates polygamy consider relocating to a country where it is legal?

Of course, I was referring to the U.S. America is a Christian nation. Not only is polygamy against the law of the land, if practiced within the Church, one is cut off.

If one tends to entertain thoughts or become preoccupied in areas, which if carried out, may get one excommunicated, I would qualify that as sin.

It seems like a waste of time and energy, longing to practice something which may never come to pass either in this life or the next. Recollections of this time in history for the saints is humiliating and degrading to women. Why continue to talk about a practice which is illegal? The majority of the sisters I have spoken with reject this idea. The bottom line is that it's in our power to refuse to practice polygamy.

[Just_A_Guy]

Do members of the Church practice polygamy in other countries?

No.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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?

I believe yes. Because, again, as stated previously, I think most of us would agree the law and calling was to raise a righteous people not to amass wives. If a man desires to raise righteous children, than that is the righteous desire and the proper focus. I don't think any of the men that practiced polygamy righteously would say that they "desired multiple wives." The desires of the heart have to be in the right place for just about every law of God to be good. Just like a charitable act done with a desire to receive some kind of recognition from men is a sin.

[HEthePrimate]

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?

I'm not trying to change the subject, but this seems to me like a reasonable way to think about it: Is it a sin for a gay person to desire to get married? (Seeing as how gay marriage is not legally recognized in most places.)

HEP

[Moksha]

“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).

How do we best cope with statements of a past President in today's Church?

[Guest]

Wouldn't it be great if my husband can have wife #2 on Tuesdays, wife #3 on Wednesdays, etc... then all I have to worry about is Mondays? I can finally learn to knit, darn socks, paint, sculpt, play tennis... all those things I have no time for today!

I find it funny that people are disgusted by polygamy yet have 5 wives/husbands plus some side-flings besides in their lifetime.

Am I wierd?

[HEthePrimate]

Wouldn't it be great if my husband can have wife #2 on Tuesdays, wife #3 on Wednesdays, etc... then all I have to worry about is Mondays? I can finally learn to knit, darn socks, paint, sculpt, play tennis... all those things I have no time for today!

Are you saying you're tired of your hubby? Just kidding!

Or would you want a different husband every day of the week?

And what if your husband gets tired, and/or wants some quiet or alone time? Does he have to have all those wives?

Am I wierd?

Probably not as weird as I am!

[Guest]

Are you saying you're tired of your hubby? Just kidding!

Or would you want a different husband every day of the week?

Oh no... not tired of hubby but I get tired of managing this household a lot of times. And no, managing another man's home too, nope! Nope. Nope. Nope. Not even if my husband decides to exchange me for a newer model, not even if he dies before me. I'm so glad God doesn't feel the need to provide women with multiple husbands. I'm so glad I am a woman.

And what if your husband gets tired, and/or wants some quiet or alone time? Does he have to have all those wives?

Probably not as weird as I am!

My husband can rest on Sundays.

[MsQwerty]

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.

There were a number of cases of women in the early LDS church being sealed to men. Joseph Smith actually started the practice himself. I'll repost a comment I made some time ago, where I asked if men in the church would be as supportive of the idea of polygamy if it meant sharing their wives with another man. See below:

After reading through the threads on polygamy, I noticed a few comments wondering about the practice of polyandry in the early church.

This article gives an explanation of how it all worked at the time: http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf

And this one focuses on the experiences of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young, who was married to Joseph Smith while married to her 'legal' husband Henry Jacobs. After Joseph was killed, she was then re-sealed to Joseph (with Brigham acting as proxy) and sealed next to Brigham Young as himself - while still married to Henry (all a bit convoluted). Brigham then sent Henry on a mission and Zina moved into Brigham's Winter Quarters.

Zina and Her Men

Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" also discusses Zina's marriages, noting that she felt it was a sacrifice greater than giving up her life when she finally relented and said yes to Joseph. He had proposed to her three times while she was courting her husband Henry, and after she was married she finally said yes to Joseph when he said that if she didn't marry him, an angel would slay him and the church would pretty much end. (p.80,81). When she married Brigham later on (while still married to Henry), she said she felt a "weakness of heart" over it (p.85,86). The practice in those days though, was that if a prophet or apostle died, his wives would be married to another apostle so their status and protection would remain the same in the church. Brigham had around seven of Joseph's wives sealed to him after the martyrdom, if I recall correctly.

Meanwhile, Henry said "I feel alone & no one to speak to call my own. I feel like a lamb without a mother.” (Compton, p.91). Henry continued to write many heartfelt and loving letters to Zina while he was away on his mission, but by then the official line was that they were separated and he never got to live with his wife again.

Henry's experience highlights the issue of why so many men in the church say they don't understand why women are so worried about polygamy, if it is a commandment from god. They, as men, don't have to contemplate, as Henry Jacobs did, the thought of their wife being taken care of and pleased by another man in a physical and emotional sense. Out of curiousity, how many men here would be ok with the idea of their wife being intimate with another man? If a man has little or no problem with the idea of having more than one wife if god commands it, then it should follow that he should be just as open to a command from god that his wife be joined to another man in every sense of the marital relationship.

On a purely cerebral level I couldn't care less about the practice of polyandry or polygamy (or any other form of marriage, quite honestly), but on a reality level, I am convinced the practice would bring much in the way of difficulty and heartache.

There are numerous instances of polyandry being practiced in the early church, but Zina and her first husband Henry have really had me thinking about the implications of plural marriage from a polyandrous perspective.

[MsQwerty]

How do we best cope with statements of a past President in today's Church?

Let me know when you figure that one out...I'd like to know too.

[MsQwerty]

I don't know and neither do you and I doubt it is reported daily.

I'm sure the previous poster meant "daily" as an expression to mean that news stories on this issue are commonly reported. Attempting to minimize the frequency of news reports on abuse in polygamous communities is simply not fair to those who suffer.

The raid on the YFZ FLDS compound in Texas was in the news daily for months, as I recall.

I have recently read "Escape" by Carolyn Jessop and "Lost Boy" by Brent W. Jeffs, both of whom lived in the FLDS polygamous communities and know firsthand of the abuses that occur in those situations. If you want specific examples I suggest you get hold of either of these books, or go online and look at organizations that have been set up to support those who flee or are exiled from their communities.

There's plenty of media exposure in the news about these people.

[john doe]

Weren't there also men sealed to Joseph Smith? It seems to me I read that at one time.

[MsQwerty]

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

Then I would sit her down, take her hand in mine and look in her the eyes and say "I love you. I always will. I want you to stand by me as I do what God wants. If you can, I will be very happy. If you can't, I understand. Sometimes God wants very difficult things. What do you want from me to make it okay?"

It would take patience and strength, I think. If someone has a violent reaction to a teaching, you can't say 'Take it or leave it.'. That's not love. Instead, make sure that they know what they're really saying is 'Do I love and trust God enough to do what He says?'

It might take some doing, but I trust that she'd come around.

I'd smack my husband (metaphorically speaking) if he tried that one on me.

What you would be doing is a) talking to her like she's a three year old, and, b) trying to convince her that while you're telling her she has a choice, she really doesn't because you're going to do what you want anyway. Oh wait, it's what GOD wants. Uh huh.

[MsQwerty]

I think there is a difference between wanting multiple wives for personal pleasure (as is clearly identified in that verse via the "concubines" additional reference).

"No variableness ... of changing." God does not give a commandment to men for their benefit. All commandments given to men are of God.

To clarify further, I do not lust after other women. It's not like I see them and want to use them, etc, but I actually desire to find many women that I feel I could spend all of time and eternity with.

My intention is not to stir things up, don't think I'm trying to contradict anything our church teaches. But I honestly believe (as mentioned earlier, I have prayed...several times, regarding the topic) that although we are restricted in our current state, that when God returns and His law is returned to this planet, that plural marriage will again be an acceptable practice under righteous desires and conditions.

This is the biggest reason why I was wondering others' input on desiring of other women (for righteous desires, not lustful, I guess I should have clarified that in my original post). That of course includes all the pleasures that come with being married, from intimate to reproductive, to just having friends around at all times that you can share every detail of your life with.

No offense, but the reality of living in polygamous marriages is very different to what you are positing here.

If you read any of the biographies that are currently in the bookstores about people who have lived in polygamous communities (the FLDS in particular), or other bios from women who have done the same in African, Arab and Asian countries, you will see it's not as you describe at all. In fact, it's most often horrible, degrading, abusive, competitive and divisive.

Then read the research on the subject of LDS polygamy as practiced in the early church and in the early years after it was first made an excommunicable practice, and you'll learn pretty much the same thing. See Todd Compton's "In Sacred Loneliness" and Van Wagoner's "Mormon Polygamy". For a softer approach if you don't like the gory details, try Holzapfel's "Women of Nauvoo" and the evidence still points to LDS women's general dislike of the polygamy. But they gritted their teeth and did what they felt the prophet wanted them to do.

One of Joseph Smith's wives was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Heber C. Kimball (an apostle at the time). It was revealed to Joseph that Helen was to be sealed to him, actually it was 'revealed' at first that Heber's wife Vilate was to be sealed to him, but the plan changed. You can look up Helen's thoughts on the subject - she was devastated because at 14 she had ideas about going out dancing and romantic feelings for a young boy. She was horrified and felt betrayed when her father came to her with the 'revelation' that she was to be sealed to Joseph. The jury is out on whether this marriage was ever consummated. This girl hated polygamy because of the heartache she'd seen her mother endure, but like other women she was convinced to be 'obedient' and submit her will to the adults around her. A quick google search on her name will yield you hours of reading if you're interested.

One of Brigham Young's younger wives (Ann Eliza Young) decided she was sick of being number 19 (in fact it later emerged she was number 52 but just didn't know it) left him and then went on the lecture circuit preaching against polygamy (and Brigham Young) and campaigning for women's rights. I actually read her book "Wife No. 19", (found it in a second hand bookstore of all places), and it makes for compelling reading.

She wrote that she had "a desire to impress upon the world what Mormonism really is; to show the pitiable condition of its women, held in a system of bondage that is more cruel than African slavery ever was, since it claims to hold body and soul alike."

You can read about her here: Ann Eliza Young - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited September 27, 2009 by MsQwerty
typo

[Dravin]

What you would be doing is a) talking to her like she's a three year old,

He's probably simplifying for the benefit of his audience, I doubt he imagines the whole discussion with his wife on the matter would consist of the few words he put up. That said it is pretty straight forward: God commanded it, we should obey, I understand it isn't easy, anything I can do to help? That pretty much applies to any commands not just plural marriage.

Edit: And unless I'm misremembering various brothern at the beginning of the practice had issues and pretty much had to go through the same line of reasoning, minus the anything I can do to help part, with themselves. I also seem to recall one or more sisters busting that out on their husbands, though as I can't remember details I could possibly be making that up.

b) trying to convince her that while you're telling her she has a choice, she really doesn't because you're going to do what you want anyway.

Nowhere does he say despite her position he's going to do it anyway. Actually my understanding from D&C 132 is if the wife says, "No way Jose!" and so he doesn't marry additional wives as commanded he's off the hook so to speak, it's on the wife's head, and he isn't under condemnation for not doing as commanded.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Dravin

[MsQwerty]

How do we best cope with statements of a past President in today's Church?

You know, I meant to post this for you before when I read your question. :)

We can dig out all kinds of weird and wonderful comments by past leaders of the church, but the fact is that it's modern revelation that is most important for us. Bruce R. McConkie was an inspiring example to me in this regard.

If you've ever read his "Mormon Doctrine", you'll know that he made many comments about the "Negro" that came across as, to be frank, downright racist. However, then he was present when the 1978 revelation was received "that the time had now come to extend the gospel and all its blessings and all its obligations, including the priesthood and the blessings of the house of the Lord, to those of every nation, culture and race, including the black race."

His response? Was it to stand by his own perceived wisdom or research? Was it to silently support his previous comments by not correcting them, thus allowing evil-minded people to use his words against the church? Was it to rely on the comments of early church leaders like Brigham Young? Nope, his humility was amazing - and taught me a lesson about the importance of revealed truth and the importance of the words of a living prophet. He said:

"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles."

What matters is that we follow the LIVING prophet today. God knows the challenges of our times and he gives us guidance through his mouthpiece today. What was revealed to saints of other times was for their benefit (even if it's not apparent to us today).

Hope that helps a little with your question.

[MsQwerty]

Weren't there also men sealed to Joseph Smith? It seems to me I read that at one time.

I haven't read a lot on this (I think Quinn has explored the subject), but the logic of it came from the idea of 'dynastic marriages'. The purpose was to join high ranking church families to the prophet's family...and then I suppose the rest of the church would also be sealed to the prophet, and to God, by extension. Something like that...I think.

[annamaureen]

Henry's experience highlights the issue of why so many men in the church say they don't understand why women are so worried about polygamy, if it is a commandment from god. They, as men, don't have to contemplate, as Henry Jacobs did, the thought of their wife being taken care of and pleased by another man in a physical and emotional sense.

My husband didn't really understand my fear and concerns about polygamy, until I asked him to imagine me being intimate with another man, in the same house, right under his nose. Trust me, that definitely helped him see my point of view! (Although he still doesn't quite "get it" fully, since that's not actually a threat to him...)

Edited September 27, 2009 by annamaureen

[Elphaba]

Weren't there also men sealed to Joseph Smith? It seems to me I read that at one time.

This was called the "Law of Adoption."

From Mormonwiki:

Early Mormons sealed living men to other men in an unusual ceremony known as the law of adoption. Thus a man could have any number of men adopted to himself as his sons for eternity."

"Not many Mormons know that in the early days of the church, the Law of Adoption was practiced to seal living men to other men. Through this ordinance, a man could have any number of men sealed to himself as his sons for eternity. According to Gordon Irving, who worked for the Historical Department of the church:"

"No consensus exists with regard to the date when the first adoptions were performed…It is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Joseph Smith did initiate certain trusted leaders into the adoptionary order as early as 1842." (Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1974, p. 295)

This doesn't answer the question as to whether Joseph "adopted" any men or not. I have never heard that he did so, though, since he initiated it, I would think he did adopt some men. But that's just speculation on my part. I do know Brigham was sealed to a number of men through this adoption.

One of the most notorious of these is John D. Lee, who was the only person convicted of participating in the Mountain Meadows Massacre. He felt Brigham betrayed him, especially since he was Brigham's adopted son.

Elphaba

Edited September 27, 2009 by Elphaba

[MsQwerty]

He's probably simplifying for the benefit of his audience, I doubt he imagines the whole discussion with his wife on the matter would consist of the few words he put up. That said it is pretty straight forward: God commanded it, we should obey, I understand it isn't easy, anything I can do to help? That pretty much applies to any commands not just plural marriage.

Edit: And unless I'm misremembering various brothern at the beginning of the practice had issues and pretty much had to go through the same line of reasoning, minus the anything I can do to help part, with themselves. I also seem to recall one or more sisters busting that out on their husbands, though as I can't remember details I could possibly be making that up.

Nowhere does he say despite her position he's going to do it anyway. Actually my understanding from D&C 132 is if the wife says, "No way Jose!" and so he doesn't marry additional wives as commanded he's off the hook so to speak, it's on the wife's head, and he isn't under condemnation for not doing as commanded.

Not in Joseph Smith's case, in fact when Emma said "No Way", Joseph then had another revelation telling her she'd be 'destroyed' if she didn't comply: "And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law" (D&C 132.54). So what are a woman's 'choices' in this situation? She really has no control over the fact that if her husband feels compelled to do so, he's going to 'take' another wife regardless of what she says. He just has to keep badgering and guilt-tripping her into accepting the idea until she gives in or leaves the marriage.

Emma's opposition to polygamy is well documented and so is the fact that Joseph kept his first few marriages at least, a secret from her because she was so against the idea. When she left with her sons for the Reorganized LDS church after Joseph's death, there are documents that show she couldn't stand Brigham Young (she thought her son should be the next prophet, not him) or polygamy (she denied it ever happened in her marriage). As such the Re-og's have never preached polygamy and deny that Joseph ever practiced it.

And I know exactly what the men in the early church said to women to get them to comply with polygamy - the old 'oh if only I didn't have those angels with flaming swords ordering me to marry that other woman' stuff. What I read here earlier is the same thing - a woman can be manipulated with religious guilt into complying with plural marriage if a man suggests it to her.

Thank goodness those days are over.

Women in polygamy made the best of a bad situation. They did their best to be faithful and try to understand why they were required to live the principle of plural marriage. In general, the literature shows they didn't much like the idea but were willing to make the sacrifices required.

[MsQwerty]

My husband didn't really understand my fear and concerns about polygamy, until I asked him to imagine me being intimate with another man, in the same house, right under his nose. Trust me, that definitely helped him see my point of view! (Although he still doesn't quite "get it" fully, since that's not actually a threat to him...)

Funny how that works...

[Dravin]

So what are a woman's 'choices' in this situation?

To obey God or face the consequences of disobeying him, same as everyone else.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Dravin

[MrsAri]

I'm not trying to change the subject, but this seems to me like a reasonable way to think about it: Is it a sin for a gay person to desire to get married? (Seeing as how gay marriage is not legally recognized in most places.)

HEP

Apparently so, as gay marriage is illegal in most states. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't make it right, any more than legalizing polygamy makes it right.

[MrsAri]

To obey God or face the consequences of disobeying him, same as everyone else.

Daughters of God have the right to say "NO".

The problem with this argument is that men are attempting to interpret on their own level the will of God!

In the latter days, women simply don't buy in to it.

Edited September 27, 2009 by GrandmaAri