Polygamy in the afterlife?

[Vort]

I think I would like to tackle this question Seminary...

I would think the premise in asking this already is incorrect. The question assumes that a full partnership can only be a full partnership if there are only two.

It really depends on the definition of "full partnership" and whether or not our understanding of being full partners is correct.

A husband with more than one wife, has full partnership with each spouse within their sphere of influence, their stewardship.

The idea that another partner is added to the companionship, does not dictate that the new companion is able to interfere with another stewardship.

It does dictate a new dynamic to the relationship, nothing more nothing less. A relationship will continue to be full no matter how many partners are within the group.

This is exactly why we can say, with complete honesty, that marriage has ALWAYS been between ONE man and ONE woman, without exception. A man might have been married to multiple women, and in some (rare) cultures, a woman might have been married to multiple men, but in every case, each marriage was a relationship between one man and one woman. One marriage has never consisted of a man and two or more women.

[Anddenex]

This is exactly why we can say, with complete honesty, that marriage has ALWAYS been between ONE man and ONE woman, without exception. A man might have been married to multiple women, and in some (rare) cultures, a woman might have been married to multiple men, but in every case, each marriage was a relationship between one man and one woman. One marriage has never consisted of a man and two or more women.

Well said Vort.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I think I would like to tackle this question Seminary...

I would think the premise in asking this already is incorrect. The question assumes that a full partnership can only be a full partnership if there are only two.

It really depends on the definition of "full partnership" and whether or not our understanding of being full partners is correct.

A husband with more than one wife, has full partnership with each spouse within their sphere of influence, their stewardship.

The idea that another partner is added to the companionship, does not dictate that the new companion is able to interfere with another stewardship.

It does dictate a new dynamic to the relationship, nothing more nothing less. A relationship will continue to be full no matter how many partners are within the group.

I think my definition of "full partnership" is that there is nothing kept separate from the marriage bond, meaning side contracts and arrangements. Yes, the man and the woman may have separate responsibilities, stewardship and authority but all under the same umbrella of the marriage relationship. If there are any responsibilities that fall under another umbrella then I would consider that to not be in "full partnership".

If I am a "full partner" of a business, is there a part of that business that I don't benefit from or that is kept separate from me? If the business ran a separate business in the same facility, like after hours, and I am a full owner (full partner) of the facility, I can't benefit from that arrangement?

So, as a plural wife, you are saying, there are some things the husband will have, in terms of blessings, glory and relationships etc. that an individual wife would not. The sum total of the wives would have equal access to all those blessings but an individual would not? I don't comprehend that.

The only way around that would be if the wives were linked to each other in their own form of covenant. That covenant I am not familiar with.

[Anddenex]

If there are any responsibilities that fall under another umbrella then I would consider that to not be in "full partnership".

In this definition I don't see any conflict with polygamy than, because there isn't any responsibilities you are kept from, under your personal umbrella within the marriage relationship, or that wouldn't bless you.

If I am a "full partner" of a business, is there a part of that business that I don't benefit from or that is kept separate from me? If the business ran a separate business in the same facility, like after hours, and I am a full owner (full partner) of the facility, I can't benefit from that arrangement?

If the business partner agreed to the decision, then yes, it will still be a full partnership. Within a business, there can be multiple partners, yet the number of partners does not dictate the lack of full partnership.

The idea of business partnership, doesn't negate a partner from venturing on his own into other avenues, even if it is within the "facility" the partner owns.

My question, why would a partner object to a business partner, on his own tab, starting another business? Would you interfere with a business partner who wants to use the facility you both own to further his investments?

If he did so, would this negate your full partnership...no it wouldn't.

So, as a plural wife, you are saying, there are some things the husband will have, in terms of blessings, glory and relationships etc. that an individual wife would not. The sum total of the wives would have equal access to all those blessings but an individual would not? I don't comprehend that.

No, I never said this, and I don't believe this idea being presented is factual. The husband and wife are "one", thus what one receives the other receives also. If a husband gains more glory, would this not reflect upon his spouse? If a wife gains glory, would not this reflect upon her husband?

A simple parable to share my point:

There is a small village. In this village it is ruled by one man with many wives. The wives have many children. The children grow up in stature, good stature. They go out into the world, and their actions garner the influence of others. As they continue their good works, and increase in reputation, will the children's actions reflect only one spousal relationship, or will they affect the village?

The answer is both. Each child from each wife will greatly influence the mother and father, as will the collective actions of the children greatly influence the village as a whole.

This is similar to polygamy. The village being marriage. All involved will be influenced collectively, thus the "blessings, glory and relationships etc." will shared by all within this relationship.

The only way around that would be if the wives were linked to each other in their own form of covenant. That covenant I am not familiar with.

I would disagree with this, since this coincides with the previous statement.

[Seminarysnoozer]

No, I never said this, and I don't believe this idea being presented is factual. The husband and wife are "one", thus what one receives the other receives also. If a husband gains more glory, would this not reflect upon his spouse? If a wife gains glory, would not this reflect upon her husband?

A simple parable to share my point:

There is a small village. In this village it is ruled by one man with many wives. The wives have many children. The children grow up in stature, good stature. They go out into the world, and their actions garner the influence of others. As they continue their good works, and increase in reputation, will the children's actions reflect only one spousal relationship, or will they affect the village?

The answer is both. Each child from each wife will greatly influence the mother and father, as will the collective actions of the children greatly influence the village as a whole.

This is similar to polygamy. The village being marriage. All involved will be influenced collectively, thus the "blessings, glory and relationships etc." will shared by all within this relationship.

Sorry, don't want to sound too mean but what you are saying here is baloney. If the village relationship is just as valuable as a marriage one and can be shared across marriages then there is no need for marriage. I could receive the value from someone else child then, there would be no need to be a mother or married.

Either the marriage relationship means something more than a "village" relationship or it doesn't. It can't be both. If m>v (marriage relationship greater than village relationship) then the man who has many m's over the number of v's has more than the person who only has one m, in simple mathematical terms. But even more importantly one wife in that relationship does not have all the m's that the husband does and therefore is not sharing or "one" with her husband 100%. The only way around that is if she considered her relationships with the other wives (w) to be greater than the v relationships, w>v. That is why I said, I don't know what that sealing is or that covenant that binds wives to each other, it does not exist but implied. And if the m = v = w, then there is no point in marriage, in my opinion, there is no added value. (which we know is not true)

God is not a whimsical God, He does not do things that are redundant or unnecessary. If one marriage is Celestial and is no greater than 2 or more marriages then it is redundant and unnecessary by definition. To suggest that plural marriage is practiced in Heaven is to say that it has additional value over monogamy, by definition. One cannot escape that assumption. Not to say that we know what that additional value is, it hasn't been revealed if such a thing is true. But in any case we are saying that plural marriage is of value over monogamy. That additional value then is not experienced by a monogamous practicing wife who happens to be married to a polygamist. The polygamy value is not shared with the wife any more than it would be shared with everyone else in the "village". But m>v, so there is an inequality between the man and the woman that exists in that setting unless the value of the "sister wife" relationship (for lack of a better term) is as valuable as a marriage relationship. Then we would have to say that the wives are essentially married to each other.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Anddenex]

Sorry, don't want to sound too mean but what you are saying here is baloney.

No worries Seminary, another person's opinion on the subject matter, when speculating or providing different answers doesn't bother me, nor is it mean.

I could receive the value from someone else child then, there would be no need to be a mother or married.

It appears we agree on something, we both can see baloney. I would think a woman who has been barren her whole life would highly disagree with you, well, at least my friends who have not been able to have any children and are unable to adopt any, would surely disagree. The idea of receiving glory from someone else's child, does not dictate in no way the lack of being a mother yourself.

I met a woman on my mission who PB talks about being a mother. She was diagnosed at 19 unable to have any children. Her consolation, she will gain value and honor as she helps her siblings with their children, and will help teach and assist in helping them.

Within a step-family, does a step child bring honor or value to the step-father/mother? You bet it does. In our ward we had a father who lost his wife of 1 year and a half to cancer. They had one son. He remarried. The wife has since the child was 9 or so months old raised him. This is not her son, but does this son reflect her, and give her value in life. Her words, "You bet it does." He is her son, and his accomplishments will be as a direct result of her efforts and her husbands.

We had another father whose wife up and left one day without any notice. She had a child before they were married. The oldest child was not his own flesh and blood, but will this child give value and honor to him? You bet the child will.

God is not a whimsical God, He does not do things that are redundant or unnecessary.

We agree.

If one marriage is Celestial and is no greater than 2 or more marriages then it is redundant and unnecessary by definition.

This is merely a personal opinion, and according to your definition of a Celestial marriage. Are you suggesting the polygamous relationships entered into by Jacob, Joseph Smith, and others were not Celestial marriages?

To suggest that plural marriage is practiced in Heaven is to say that it has additional value over monogamy, by definition. One cannot escape that assumption. Not to say that we know what that additional value is, it hasn't been revealed if such a thing is true.

True, and yet at the same time, they don't. The value of polygamy in this life has already been specified, to raise up a righteous seed. The question then, is this a true principle, an eternal principle, or solely an earthly principle?

But in any case we are saying that plural marriage is of value over monogamy. That additional value then is not experienced by a monogamous practicing wife who happens to be married to a polygamist. The polygamy value is not shared with the wife any more than it would be shared with everyone else in the "village". But m>v, so there is an inequality between the man and the woman that exists in that setting unless the value of the "sister wife" relationship (for lack of a better term) is as valuable as a marriage relationship. Then we would have to say that the wives are essentially married to each other.

I would disagree with your assessment and what you consider to be inequality and value. Truth doesn't take any sides. If polygamy is a true and eternal principle, which most likely it is, then this idea would be incorrect, or as you bluntly like to say, "baloney."

No hard feelings Seminary...I appreciate your candor and our discussions. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

Are you suggesting the polygamous relationships entered into by Jacob, Joseph Smith, and others were not Celestial marriages?

True, and yet at the same time, they don't. The value of polygamy in this life has already been specified, to raise up a righteous seed. The question then, is this a true principle, an eternal principle, or solely an earthly principle?

I would disagree with your assessment and what you consider to be inequality and value. Truth doesn't take any sides. If polygamy is a true and eternal principle, which most likely it is, then this idea would be incorrect, or as you bluntly like to say, "baloney."

No hard feelings Seminary...I appreciate your candor and our discussions. :)

Thanks for taking my jab lightly, sorry.

I appreciate your responses as well.

First I don't think the deficiencies of this body of any kind will continue in a Celestial body so the various hardships that are here related to this body, including the possibility of not having enough male bodies around will not be an issue.

As far as the many righteous polygamous marriages that have been on Earth, I don't deny that in many cases God has commanded it here on Earth. There are several examples of covenants that can be performed a few times over that carry the same significance to us but serve as a reminder of the previous time we did it but will not necessarily mean that we have that many numbers of the same "document" in the next life, so-to-speak. Partaking of the Sacrament is one. Every time we take the sacrament it is a covenant and it is repeated but I don't think that God is going to multiply the blessing based on that number and continue the number in Heaven somehow. I am only saying that things that are done on Earth do not have to have the same relative significance they did here continued there. If our stewardship here is 0.000001% of our future stewardship, or whatever the number, I don't think we are going to be pushing God to say, wait a minute, 'I had 0.000002% compared to everyone else' 0.0000001% (or some ridiculously small number), how come I don't continue that same percentage difference from everyone else here in Heaven, for every one wife he has I should have 2'.

Another way to think of it is, if I take a test and I get 100% and I do the extra credit questions and get those all right as well; how is my grade going to reflect that? A++? If qualifying for the everlasting covenant is already the A+, top of the class, nobody above them kind-of-grade and they receive all that the Father has, why is there a desire for anything more than that?

I am being picky about little things I realize, but then again it is an attitude thing about the desire for such a thing that I occasionally here from men in the church that just rubs me the wrong way. So, I put up some resistance to at least think about the possibilities.

Thanks.

[Anddenex]

Thanks for taking my jab lightly, sorry.

No need for the "sorry", I fully understood the intent. I think a honest jab at each other is healthy at times. Plus, I never felt it was a personal attack, just specifying the potential "baloney" I offer, which it could be.

First I don't think the deficiencies of this body of any kind will continue in a Celestial body so the various hardships that are here related to this body, including the possibility of not having enough male bodies around will not be an issue.

I agree with the first sentence, the part after the comma, I think BYU's and BYU Idaho's ratio of men to women disagree.

Another way to think of it is, if I take a test and I get 100% and I do the extra credit questions and get those all right as well; how is my grade going to reflect that? A++? If qualifying for the everlasting covenant is already the A+, top of the class, nobody above them kind-of-grade and they receive all that the Father has, why is there a desire for anything more than that?

I agree.

I am being picky about little things I realize, but then again it is an attitude thing about the desire for such a thing that I occasionally here from men in the church that just rubs me the wrong way. So, I put up some resistance to at least think about the possibilities.

I would agree with this statement also, and fully understand, however I think this is a result of horny young men conversations, with intelligent young women, who think the idea of the "intimacy" aspect, and that young men only specify the idea of being intimate with more than one woman.

I honestly do not believe, the idea of "intimacy" will be an issue in the next life, and polygamy is not a sexual based doctrine, but unfortunately, male nature only focuses on this aspect.

For example, referring back to my friend who lost his wife to cancer after a year and a half, who is also sealed to his second wife.

When the time comes he is able to meet his first wife, I wouldn't be surprised if both wives will have a choice to remain with him or not. However, if they both choose to remain with him, does this negate or lessen my glory that I may have my wife and no others...I think not.

If polygamy isn't an eternal principle, then I really feel sorry for one of the wives of my friend. The first wife, probably is looking forward to the reuniting of her husband and children. The second wife, would it be fair to her to loose her husband in the next life, a husband she only knows, and then if so, to choose a companion she has no experience with?

Either way it could be the case, but I don't believe it is.

Good conversation, and good thoughts.

[Seminarysnoozer]

For example, referring back to my friend who lost his wife to cancer after a year and a half, who is also sealed to his second wife.

When the time comes he is able to meet his first wife, I wouldn't be surprised if both wives will have a choice to remain with him or not. However, if they both choose to remain with him, does this negate or lessen my glory that I may have my wife and no others...I think not.

If polygamy isn't an eternal principle, then I really feel sorry for one of the wives of my friend. The first wife, probably is looking forward to the reuniting of her husband and children. The second wife, would it be fair to her to loose her husband in the next life, a husband she only knows, and then if so, to choose a companion she has no experience with?

Either way it could be the case, but I don't believe it is.

Good conversation, and good thoughts.

Thanks. This (in bold) is a very good question that I don't think we have all the knowledge yet to answer. I think this may be where our trip-up on this topic may lie. I think that choice is not going to be as difficult as you are making it out to be. Let me just throw out a thought that I already know I am going to get beat up over after I put this out there but oh well ... When one is Christ-like enough to take on the image of Christ in their countenance and is glorified with the single Celestial body, as the glory of the sun is "one" and receives all that God has to offer by making it into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, in other words that man has 100% of what Christ and God have, what specific distinguishing feature do you expect to find in such an individual that would distinctly and uniquely identify that man as something different than any other man there outside of the history of how they got there? The only distinguishing identifier is the history, 'I was this', 'I was like that', once a person arrives at the great 'I am' I don't think they are going to lay claim to any specific identifier of less than that as something glorious or desirable. If we desire all that God has, then why hold onto the part? This is why the choice would not be very difficult, like looking at 30 jugs of milk in the grocery store sitting on the shelf, does it really matter which one you take?

If you think about it, what you are trying to say is that qualities that an individual might have different from another would be looked at as valuable, 'I have this and you don't'. 'I have this history with this person and you don't'. I think people who think like that will not be in the Celestial Kingdom, there is a place for that, the Telestial Kingdom where the glory of one star differs from another in wide variability. Part of this test we face is to love your neighbor as yourself. If everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is 100% loving their neighbor as their self, they will not hold onto individual histories as something they would hold over or view as better or worse than another. They would look at everyone as equal. And we are to try to practice that view as much as we can while here, to learn to like such circumstances. Uniqueness and selfishness, the way I see it, are pretty close cousins.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Anddenex]

Thanks. This (in bold) is a very good question that I don't think we have all the knowledge yet to answer. I think this may be where our trip-up on this topic may lie. I think that choice is not going to be as difficult as you are making it out to be. Let me just throw out a thought that I already know I am going to get beat up over after I put this out there but oh well ... When one is Christ-like enough to take on the image of Christ in their countenance and is glorified with the single Celestial body, as the glory of the sun is "one" and receives all that God has to offer by making it into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, in other words that man has 100% of what Christ and God have, what specific distinguishing feature do you expect to find in such an individual that would distinctly and uniquely identify that man as something different than any other man there outside of the history of how they got there? The only distinguishing identifier is the history, 'I was this', 'I was like that', once a person arrives at the great 'I am' I don't think they are going to lay claim to any specific identifier of less than that as something glorious or desirable. If we desire all that God has, then why hold onto the part? This is why the choice would not be very difficult, like looking at 30 jugs of milk in the grocery store sitting on the shelf, does it really matter which one you take?

Sorry, just have to say this for fun and kicks, with polygamy I could choose all 30 jugs...just sayin.

If you think about it, what you are trying to say is that qualities that an individual might have different from another would be looked at as valuable, 'I have this and you don't'. 'I have this history with this person and you don't'. I think people who think like that will not be in the Celestial Kingdom, there is a place for that, the Telestial Kingdom where the glory of one star differs from another in wide variability. Part of this test we face is to love your neighbor as yourself. If everyone in the Celestial Kingdom is 100% loving their neighbor as their self, they will not hold onto individual histories as something they would hold over or view as better or worse than another. They would look at everyone as equal. And we are to try to practice that view as much as we can while here, to learn to like such circumstances. Uniqueness and selfishness, the way I see it, are pretty close cousins.

The point is, if there isn't, then she will have to choose another companion, and in the eternal scheme of life, this won't matter much.

However, I think my history and my experiences will play a vital role, even in the eternities of who I am.

Could you imagine, along the thought you are providing, God say's, "Nice work, and you and your husband are exalted, however, since we love each other 100%, you were not supposed to choose your husband, but this was supposed to be your husband if you followed my counsel." The he pairs with you a total stranger, at least according to our experiences on earth.

Thus it really wouldn't matter who we paired off with, heck we all could be swingers.

Well, before my light heart, turns into light-mindedness (or maybe it reached that point) - I understand what you are saying.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Anddenex

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sorry, just have to say this for fun and kicks, with polygamy I could choose all 30 jugs...just sayin.

The point is, if there isn't, then she will have to choose another companion, and in the eternal scheme of life, this won't matter much.

However, I think my history and my experiences will play a vital role, even in the eternities of who I am.

Could you imagine, along the thought you are providing, God say's, "Nice work, and you and your husband are exalted, however, since we love each other 100%, you were not supposed to choose your husband, but this was supposed to be your husband if you followed my counsel." The he pairs with you a total stranger, at least according to our experiences on earth.

Thus it really wouldn't matter who we paired off with, heck we all could be swingers.

Well, before my light heart, turns into light-mindedness (or maybe it reached that point) - I understand what you are saying.

My husband accuses me of using too many metaphors all the time, so there we go, that is how I get myself into trouble .... that was a good one!

I think our perspective here is so skewed that we often put way more weight into this life's experience then needs be. In fact that becomes the test, are the treasures of this world more important than the treasures of the heavens? I think if we ask ourselves that question in all things - even marriage, then we might have the right perspective.

I think in an eternal perspective, our relationships can continue to the next but we may look back at it as strongly (or as little) as who we sat next to in Kindergarten. Does who you sat next to in Kindergarten affect your college entry exam or where you went to college? By comparison, I would think our life's detailed experience means about that much. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not talking about the huge fork in the road this life is, whether we pass the second estate or not, I am just talking about the details of how we pass it. So long as we cross the "line" in the line upon line learning, then we move on and our stewardship changes. When we become an adult we put away childish things - I think we will look at this life similarly in the eternal perspective. This life is our lowest point, I don't know if we would want to hold onto the details of the lowest point as a badge on our sleeve. Even then, it could still remain as a fond memory and a historical foundation for growth that one retells at the Celestial campfire. I doubt that it will serve as a distinguishing characteristic amongst Celestial beings though, as in "I had this experience and you didn't." "I sat next to Brad in Kindergarten and you didn't." (....who cares?) Do people who are "high school sweethearts" and get married have a stronger, more meaningful marriage than those who are not "high school sweethearts"? .... I don't think it will matter much, even if it will be a fun and cute thing to say.

[Michael1965]

I had a similar discussion with my Elders Quorum president and I was told that men can be sealed to only one woman. If he becomes a widower, he can be remarried but only for time, not eternity. Likewise for a woman who loses her husband- she can remarry but if she was sealed to her previous husband, her marriage would be for time only. I too have heard the "urban legend" that polygamy is practiced in heaven but I have yet to find any doctrine or scripture to support that. I have read and heard many comments attacking the LDS faith; that's the problem with ignorance- it propagates much quicker than truth in today's world.

[Anddenex]

I had a similar discussion with my Elders Quorum president and I was told that men can be sealed to only one woman. If he becomes a widower, he can be remarried but only for time, not eternity. Likewise for a woman who loses her husband- she can remarry but if she was sealed to her previous husband, her marriage would be for time only. I too have heard the "urban legend" that polygamy is practiced in heaven but I have yet to find any doctrine or scripture to support that. I have read and heard many comments attacking the LDS faith; that's the problem with ignorance- it propagates much quicker than truth in today's world.

It is apparent your EQP misunderstood what a sealing is. This is where the doctrine lies, a sealing binds on earth as in heaven.

A marriage, not done in the temple, nor by priesthood sealing, is thus a marriage for time and time only.

If you have been married in the temple, then you know the sealing isn't for time and time only.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It is apparent your EQP misunderstood what a sealing is. This is where the doctrine lies, a sealing binds on earth as in heaven.

A marriage, not done in the temple, nor by priesthood sealing, is thus a marriage for time and time only.

If you have been married in the temple, then you know the sealing isn't for time and time only.

I agree, but the "open door" to that sealing is the fact that there are conditions attached to it, just like every covenant. So, just because something was done here on Earth and we know it can be binding in Heaven doesn't necessarily mean it is, the conditions have to be met also. So, your last sentence should be taken with the caveat of having met all the attached conditions.

[Anddenex]

I agree, but the "open door" to that sealing is the fact that there are conditions attached to it, just like every covenant. So, just because something was done here on Earth and we know it can be binding in Heaven doesn't necessarily mean it is, the conditions have to be met also. So, your last sentence should be taken with the caveat of having met all the attached conditions.

Agreed Seminary. Thus, if the conditions are met, and a sealing took place, then it is a higher chance it is also bound in heaven.

[The Folk Prophet]

I am personal witness to years of exactly such teachings. usually implicit but often very explicit.

Sorry to resurrect an old post (was just browsing through this one as a matter of interest), but I'm afraid I'm going to have to request a source for this.

I've been personal witness for years at Priesthood sessions and the like. Certainly some "your wives are better" remarks that were clearly tongue-in-cheek. To claim this is church teaching is a wild stretch IMO.

[Crash]

I had a hard enough time being married to my ex-wife, I can't imagine the difficulty of having more than one in the afterlife.

[Vort]

Sorry to resurrect an old post (was just browsing through this one as a matter of interest), but I'm afraid I'm going to have to request a source for this.

I've been personal witness for years at Priesthood sessions and the like. Certainly some "your wives are better" remarks that were clearly tongue-in-cheek. To claim this is church teaching is a wild stretch IMO.

Not sure how I can give a source. As I said, they were the teachings I experienced growing up. I'm bearing personal witness, not citing studies. I suppose you can believe me or disbelieve me.

[The Folk Prophet]

Not sure how I can give a source. As I said, they were the teachings I experienced growing up. I'm bearing personal witness, not citing studies. I suppose you can believe me or disbelieve me.

Easy! You just read through every priesthood talk ever published and look for quotes.

I don't disbelieve you. I disbelieve the implied principle however.

[Vort]

Easy! You just read through every priesthood talk ever published and look for quotes.

I don't disbelieve you. I disbelieve the implied principle however.

Sadly, I don't have transcripts of all the Priesthood meetings, sacrament meeting talks, and Sunday School classes I attended growing up.

[The Folk Prophet]

Sadly, I don't have transcripts of all the Priesthood meetings, sacrament meeting talks, and Sunday School classes I attended growing up.

Oh...well...yeah...if you're including those...yeah.... I heard that all the time then.

[jb789]

For any interested I would suggest reading a book by Denver Snuffer called "Passing The Heavenly Gift". In a chapter of his book Denver historically outlines the changes in church policy (beginning with Joseph Smith and then up until our present day) regarding polygamy. In a nutshell that doesn't fully do it justice the premise Denver outlines is this:

1) Joseph Smith indeed was called upon by God to take multiple wives (if you look Joseph up on the LDS geneology website you will see he was sealed to multiple wives). However, Denver (who has studied a great deal of church history in depth) indicates that this was probably a sort of "Abrahamic test" where Joseph was being tried by the Lord to see if he would sacrifice all things. Just as Abraham was asked to sacrifice his most precious son, to show he would do the will of God above all else. In a similar manner with Joseph being asked to marry other women. Joseph actually wanted nothing to do with this, but when Joseph realized God demanded it from him he conceded.

2) Only after Joseph's death did Brigham Young start teaching a policy of polygamy, equating it with requirement to enter the Celestial Kingdom, etc. This was not what Joseph taught himself.

3) When it was clear the church would lose its property and be imprisoned, Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto that polygamy was to end. It was ended due to the demands of the US government that it was deemed illegal.

4) Currently, the modern-day church obviously does not endorse polygamy. However, they do not explain points 1 and 2 sufficiently either. They give no definitive answer in regards to the matter.

While I don't know for certain the truth or un-truth of this principle (polygamy), it was very interesting for me to read Denver's writings and historical findings on this. Denver's inference that polygamy was more of an Abrahamic test for Joseph, and then later (perhaps falsely) instituted by Brigham as a policy of the celestial kingdom/etc may in fact be true. I know personally that I have never received spiritual confirmation of polygamy, and in fact it does seem quite unfair and odd a principle to me. At this time I would side more with Denver's explanation than the idea that polygamy is truly a principle of heaven/etc. But every person must seek the answer themselves - this is not an issue the church is currently definitive on.

[Vort]

I would encourage people not to read Denver Snuffer.

[The Folk Prophet]

{clip} read Brian C. Hales three volume set Joseph Smith's Polygamy.

Edited January 25, 2014 by Eowyn
references deleted post

[classylady]

Vort, do you know if there are any actual teachings that men are lesser beings? Or do you think the teachings have been more along the lines of: respect the women in your lives, perhaps trying to counter some tendencies towards unrighteous dominion by the minority?

My feelings are that men and women are different, and with good reason. Throughout the history of the earth, in order for mankind to survive, we needed the different inherent natures of both male and female: males to be strong and provide, along with all their other traits that comes with testosterone; and females to be the nurturers and caregivers, because of their different hormones, etc. Plus, I don't feel the Father favors men or women over the other. My feelings are that we (both men and women) have an equal chance of returning to Father's presence.

Do you think it's Mormon Myth that women are more righteous, so more of them will attain the highest degree of glory than men? Or are there actual teachings on this?

I still maintain my opinion that Heavenly Father would not have sent his sons into mortal life with the knowledge that just because they are male, they would have a lesser chance of obtaining celestial glory.