Multiple wives?

[Seminarysnoozer]

I know, people are going to say, 'not another polygamy thread!' This isn't about Earthly practices!

I just simply want to know of any sources that say that as Latter Day Saints we believe that God has multiple wives. Is there any source for that?

The reason I am asking is during Sunday School yesterday, somebody said that so matter-of-fact that it made me want to find the exact description of such a belief and especially modern revelation (i.e - not from our polygamy forefathers). I couldn't find any sources.

Do we believe that God has multiple wives or is that just a common theory amongst LDS?

I have read a few talks by our leaders that use the term "Heavenly Mother" but I don't see any that say "Heavenly Mothers". It is rarely said, but even then it is always single, not plural.

(This, again, is not intended to be a discussion about earthly laws and practices, thats been done, thanks)

[JudoMinja]

I believe it is possible, since God has instituted the practice of polygamy on several occassions. That must mean that polygamy itself is not necessarily evil or wrong, so why wouldn't God have multiple wives? Now, I haven't seen anything that officially or strongly supports this, but I don't think the possibility should be entirely negated.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe it is possible, since God has instituted the practice of polygamy on several occassions. That must mean that polygamy itself is not necessarily evil or wrong, so why wouldn't God have multiple wives? Now, I haven't seen anything that officially or strongly supports this, but I don't think the possibility should be entirely negated.

Thanks. Again, I am not wanting to find this to prove it evil or righteous as far as earthly practices go but more to understand the nature of God and our future. I believe that God directed the practice here for a period of time, I have no problem with that. But God also directed the practice of blood sacrifice. The law of Moses was directed by God too. The things we do here are not a direct statement that they will be part of our lives in the next.

I understand there is a possibility, but how probable? Has any leader stated that it is likely?

Or stated it as matter-of-fact as my fellow ward sister did?

Thanks for your response.

[Dravin]

Do we believe that God has multiple wives or is that just a common theory amongst LDS?

You are kinda leaving off a third option: Or is that just a theory of this sister (and some non-common number of others)? Personally this is the first time I've heard the theory in a contemporary setting (except from antis* a couple times) that he does have multiple wives (though I have heard the theory that Christ practice polygamy from members (contemporary ones) but I certainly wouldn't call it common in my experience). I'm sure you'll find some who, like JudoMinja, conclude there isn't a theological block to such a theory, but that's different then actually holding the theory that such is the case. Kinda like how there is a distinction between believing Christ was married, and not finding him being married to be a theological block.

Jesus Christ/Was Jesus married/Was Jesus a polygamist - FAIRMormon - This contains a quote about how God the Father had a plurality of wives, but you've noted you are only interested in more recent statements. However, it could be sources like this (as you put them polygamy forefathers) that are the source of this sister's position.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

If there are sources, they are not official sources. The Church's stance is doctrine is based upon the scriptures and official declarations and proclamations. Journal of Discourses does not count as an official source, but is just a source for thoughts and beliefs of Church leaders from 150 years ago.

[Seminarysnoozer]

You are kinda leaving off a third option: Or is that just a theory of this sister (and some non-common number of others)? Personally this is the first time I've heard the theory in a contemporary setting (except from antis* a couple times) that he does have multiple wives (though I have heard the theory that Christ practice polygamy from members (contemporary ones) but I certainly wouldn't call it common in my experience). I'm sure you'll find some who, like JudoMinja, conclude there isn't a theological block to such a theory, but that's different then actually holding the theory that such is the case. Kinda like how there is a distinction between believing Christ was married, and not finding him being married to be a theological block.

Jesus Christ/Was Jesus married/Was Jesus a polygamist - FAIRMormon - This contains a quote about how God the Father had a plurality of wives, but you've noted you are only interested in more recent statements. However, it could be sources like this (as you put them polygamy forefathers) that are the source of this sister's position.

This is good to know, maybe it is just my impression that it is common. Maybe it is just as common as theories could be in our religion.

I think I was also struck by how many people just kind of quietly agreed (I guess I did the same thing since I didn't say anything).

Thanks for the source.

(Maybe this is a sign too that I have to stop watching the program "Sister Wives" on cable TV)

[Blackmarch]

I believe it is possible, since God has instituted the practice of polygamy on several occassions. That must mean that polygamy itself is not necessarily evil or wrong, so why wouldn't God have multiple wives? Now, I haven't seen anything that officially or strongly supports this, but I don't think the possibility should be entirely negated.

This about sums it up.

[Justice]

I believe it is possible. I don't think all who attain the highest degree of glory have to have multiple wives, but they must have a wife.

And, I believe the wedding at Cana was one where Jesus was the bridegroom. The text of the story cannot logically be taken any other way.

If it is true, it would be a big blow to Trinitarian beliefs. The Triune God has no reason to be married to mortal women.

[Snow]

If there are sources, they are not official sources. The Church's stance is doctrine is based upon the scriptures and official declarations and proclamations. Journal of Discourses does not count as an official source, but is just a source for thoughts and beliefs of Church leaders from 150 years ago.

Yes = perhaps, but only if you believe that multiple prophets (Presidents) and multiple apostles are not official.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This about sums it up.

But with that reasoning God must practice animal sacrifice, pay tithing and circumcision too. Gospel practices are for us to prepare to return, given during certain times for specific reasons. They don't always equate to practices that will be found in the next life. I think there are some practices that we can agree are highly unlikely to be a part of God's day.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe it is possible. I don't think all who attain the highest degree of glory have to have multiple wives, but they must have a wife.

And, I believe the wedding at Cana was one where Jesus was the bridegroom. The text of the story cannot logically be taken any other way.

If it is true, it would be a big blow to Trinitarian beliefs. The Triune God has no reason to be married to mortal women.

My feeling is that if is something that doesn't have to be done, then it isn't done by God. I would say that most everything if not all that God does, has to be done to be at that level. Of course, whenever we are talking about some lower level, even slightly lower then it may not "have to" be done.

[Guest gopecon]

Tithing and animal sacrifice are/were practices to help God's children to learn lessons to help prepare us to return. Marriage (in any authorized form) is a relationship that is expected to continue beyond the grave. The fact that at times we have been called to practice polygamy (with multiple sealings) indicates that it is possible that our Father in Heaven did the same. As Snow said, there have been prophets and apostles who have indicated such. The question is were they inferring that from the fact that polygamy was commanded in the early days of the Church, or did they have some revelation confirming that to them? All of the statements I recall seeing were of the former variety - although I would not be surprised if they had their ideas confirmed via the Holy Ghost. Given that this issue is not terribly relevant to our salvation I doubt that we'll see anything official prior to the Millenium.

[annewandering]

It seems slightly amusing that people keep trying to distance themselves from polygamy. Consider this. If a man is sealed to more than one woman in the temple the surmise is that he will have multiple wives in the hereafter.

If it is allowed in the Celestial Kingdom then it must be acceptable practice.

If man can become a god as our Heavenly Father it then it seems logical that God might very well have multiple wives. Might of course being an important word. We dont know but we should realize we dont know EITHER way.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It seems slightly amusing that people keep trying to distance themselves from polygamy. Consider this. If a man is sealed to more than one woman in the temple the surmise is that he will have multiple wives in the hereafter.

If it is allowed in the Celestial Kingdom then it must be acceptable practice.

If man can become a god as our Heavenly Father it then it seems logical that God might very well have multiple wives. Might of course being an important word. We dont know but we should realize we dont know EITHER way.

I'm not sure if you are talking about me or in general, "people keep trying to distance themselves from polygamy." I would say I am about as 'distanced' from that as I am from animal sacrifice. There are no family members that I have that have practiced polygamy, it is not a part of my world right now in any form or fashion other than people at church bringing it up (and now this discussion). Most members of the church that I am around here in San Diego do not have polygamy in their recent ancestry. From what I can see, for most LDS it is already a distant topic about as far away as animal sacrifice. So, if anything I hear the opposite, that people, when they bring it up, are trying to approximate themselves to the topic. I find that interesting (not amusing).

[garryw]

An opinion on the internet is not worth a hill of beans. That being said, I would be quite surprised to discover only one heavenly mother. Joseph Smith and others sacrificed an amazing amount to live the principal. It's of God or the devil. Take your pick.

[Seminarysnoozer]

An opinion on the internet is not worth a hill of beans. That being said, I would be quite surprised to discover only one heavenly mother. Joseph Smith and others sacrificed an amazing amount to live the principal. It's of God or the devil. Take your pick.

See this is what is surprising to me, that principles that are lived here are directly applied to what goes on in the next life. Why can there not be another option besides "of God or the devil"? Why can't there be the option of this is a principle that was lived in this life for specific reasons during a certain era or eras?

Wouldn't people who lived the law of circumcision have similar passions about their laws? Would you take it that far, to say that God will practice circumcision in the next life? You probably wouldn't. I understand what people have said about marriage that that, of course is different than tithing etc. I believe that too. But, I also believe there is a difference between marriage between a man and a woman versus having lived a sealing covenant and receiving the privileges one obtains by living a certain covenant in the next life.

In other words, the blessings that come from living the covenant of circumcision could be a part of the next life without having to practice circumcision in the next life. Likewise, the blessings that came from those asked to live polygamy in this life at those times when it was asked will be there without necessarily having to practice polygamy in the next life. .... just a thought.

[Guest Magen_Avot]

Hmmm, it's amazing that what was common knowledge a couple of decades ago is cause for confusion. I will try to dig up some info when I get home but in the meantime I'd offer this:

Unless there have been recent changes I don't know about...

1) When a man (first marriage or sealing) marries a widow who was sealed to another man they could only get married for time. (unless temple divorced)

2) When a widower (second, third ect marriage or sealing) married a woman (first marriage or sealing) they were sealed for all eternity.

In effect, if we believe in eternal marriage, and a man can be sealed to more than one woman (via death of spouse these days) then polygamy is in fact practiced in heaven. How could it be otherwise?

While this does not show that God has plural wives (not that it matters anyway ) if He practices what He preaches is there really any question?

I'll follow up tomorrow, hopeful I can dig up something substantial.

[Traveler]

An opinion on the internet is not worth a hill of beans. That being said, I would be quite surprised to discover only one heavenly mother. Joseph Smith and others sacrificed an amazing amount to live the principal. It's of God or the devil. Take your pick.

I would be much much more surprised to discover that anyone has more than one actual heavenly mother.

The Traveler

[Guest Magen_Avot]

Split personality?

:lol::lol:

Edited October 19, 2011 by Magen_Avot

[JudoMinja]

The more I think about this the more I find myself wondering if there are simply more female spirits than male spirits... If so, that would explain polygamy both here and in heaven, but it also causes me to wonder what the implications might be.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World states,

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

And what are the divinely attributed characteristics and/or responsibilities of the female gender? While I think there are several, I find it interesting that only one is specifically pointed out in "The Family":

Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

Just think about it. I personally cannot even think of the words to describe the images and feelings this invokes with regards to the nature of eternity. The amount of "mothering", of divine femininity, of growth and care... It's an amazing thing to think about.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hmmm, it's amazing that what was common knowledge a couple of decades ago is cause for confusion. I will try to dig up some info when I get home but in the meantime I'd offer this:

Unless there have been recent changes I don't know about...

1) When a man (first marriage or sealing) marries a widow who was sealed to another man they could only get married for time. (unless temple divorced)

2) When a widower (second, third ect marriage or sealing) married a woman (first marriage or sealing) they were sealed for all eternity.

In effect, if we believe in eternal marriage, and a man can be sealed to more than one woman (via death of spouse these days) then polygamy is in fact practiced in heaven. How could it be otherwise?

While this does not show that God has plural wives (not that it matters anyway ) if He practices what He preaches is there really any question?

I'll follow up tomorrow, hopeful I can dig up something substantial.

This may sound like a silly question, is there any difference between "eternal marriage" and "sealed for all eternity"?

The reason I ask is because there will be many forms of sealings. Essentially, anybody who makes it into the Celestial Kingdom will be all sealed together in one form or fashion but obviously, we will not all be married to each other. I am sealed to my father, but, of course, wouldn't say that is the equivalent to eternal marriage.

The other way to ask it would be; is "sealed for all eternity" a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom whereas "eternal marriage" may not be? If that is true then I can see the benefit of having the sealing 'ticket' so-to-speak to get into the Celestial Kingdom without it being an "eternal marriage" to be worked out later, finding the "eternal marriage" partner later but still qualifying for the privilege by having the sealing covenant done.

[Guest Magen_Avot]

This may sound like a silly question, is there any difference between "eternal marriage" and "sealed for all eternity"?

The reason I ask is because there will be many forms of sealings. Essentially, anybody who makes it into the Celestial Kingdom will be all sealed together in one form or fashion but obviously, we will not all be married to each other. I am sealed to my father, but, of course, wouldn't say that is the equivalent to eternal marriage.

The other way to ask it would be; is "sealed for all eternity" a requirement for the Celestial Kingdom whereas "eternal marriage" may not be? If that is true then I can see the benefit of having the sealing 'ticket' so-to-speak to get into the Celestial Kingdom without it being an "eternal marriage" to be worked out later, finding the "eternal marriage" partner later but still qualifying for the privilege by having the sealing covenant done.

"What you said",... . But since readers may come from any number of directions I was just trying to be all inclusive and perhaps too simple. Sealing means eternal marriage and have also been termed temple marriage, but a "time only" marriage in the temple should(?) be referred to as a temple marriage but it's a sealing too (aaAAHHHhhh). If someone says their family was sealed then this may mean the husband and wife (previously married for time) have now been sealed for time and all eternity and may also mean the children were sealed to the parents after their parents were sealed as husband and wife. To help make matters more confusing, I've heard all possible terms used for every situation, this is sometimes done to ward off prying questions that the couple wants to avoid. The only way to understand what is really being said is to know the circumstances of the couple you're haveing the conversation with. It seems to get more difficult to explain when more details are given. You can probly see why I didn't go into more detail than I did.

I think I'd like to see the temple recomend for a first sealing/marriage compared to a recommend for someone getting sealed 1 year after a "time only" marriage. I wonder if they're different?

There is but one sealing required for eternal marriage (whatever term you use or circumstance asked about) and is only for the celestial kingdom though. A sealing/marriage for all eternity is null if you don't make it to the celestial kingdom.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Magen_Avot

[garryw]

See this is what is surprising to me, that principles that are lived here are directly applied to what goes on in the next life. Why can there not be another option besides "of God or the devil"? Why can't there be the option of this is a principle that was lived in this life for specific reasons during a certain era or eras?

Polygamy was not instituted by Joseph Smith for convenience. Stories you hear about pioneers needing polygamy for practical reasons are bogus. It was not practical. It was extremely impractical.

My opinion is that if Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy, he would have not been martyred. Look at the series of events that led to his death. He died more a martyr for polygamy than for the BOM.

I just don't think Heavenly Father would expect Joseph to die for a practice that He himself does not live.

I don't know, but these are my opinions.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Polygamy was not instituted by Joseph Smith for convenience. Stories you hear about pioneers needing polygamy for practical reasons are bogus. It was not practical. It was extremely impractical.

My opinion is that if Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy, he would have not been martyred. Look at the series of events that led to his death. He died more a martyr for polygamy than for the BOM.

I just don't think Heavenly Father would expect Joseph to die for a practice that He himself does not live.

I don't know, but these are my opinions.

What does that have to do with it being a practice in the next life, I don't see the link. Don't you think there were people who were martyrs over circumcision?

[Seminarysnoozer]

"What you said",... . But since readers may come from any number of directions I was just trying to be all inclusive and perhaps too simple. Sealing means eternal marriage and have also been termed temple marriage, but a "time only" marriage in the temple should(?) be referred to as a temple marriage but it's a sealing too (aaAAHHHhhh). If someone says their family was sealed then this may mean the husband and wife (previously married for time) have now been sealed for time and all eternity and may also mean the children were sealed to the parents after their parents were sealed as husband and wife. To help make matters more confusing, I've heard all possible terms used for every situation, this is sometimes done to ward off prying questions that the couple wants to avoid. The only way to understand what is really being said is to know the circumstances of the couple you're haveing the conversation with. It seems to get more difficult to explain when more details are given. You can probly see why I didn't go into more detail than I did.

I think I'd like to see the temple recomend for a first sealing/marriage compared to a recommend for someone getting sealed 1 year after a "time only" marriage. I wonder if they're different?

There is but one sealing required for eternal marriage (whatever term you use or circumstance asked about) and is only for the celestial kingdom though. A sealing/marriage for all eternity is null if you don't make it to the celestial kingdom.

So, then you would agree that a plural marriage wouldn't step a person closer to exaltation as the single sealing is all that is needed as far as covenants go. Plural marriage is not on the road to exaltation, just was a commandment for some for that time. Right?