Polygamy in the afterlife?

[Windseeker]

Yeah, Sister Wives, I've watched a couple episodes and on it's face all I thought was how incredibly dysfunctional and unbalanced it all seemed.

[BrendaM]

As a few of you may know, I am a middle-aged single mom (never married), with an adult daughter.

My "natural man" mind finds the idea of polygamy repulsive on so many levels. However, I don't know what may be asked of me when I'm in the Celestial Kingdom (hopefully I'm there first off). I know that my resurrected mind will be blessed by ALL of Heavenly Fathers commandments. And I will be obedient to them as I know that my agency will never be taken from me. Ever.

[Just_A_Guy]

Polygamy is ref'd in the scriptures as "the law of Sarah" and so I think the relationship between Sarah and Abraham is symbolic of what it is all about... Abraham sacrificing Isaac symbolized Heavenly Father sacrificing Jesus of coarse, so that would mean that Sarah is symbolic of our Heavenly Mother. Abraham did not actually have to kill his son (unlike the atonement) and Sarah did not end up having to rely on a handmaid (unlike Jesus being born to the handmaid Mary)... so yea, I think it is symbolic of Mary - the handmaid of the Lord - being the mother of Their "only" begotten child... when I think that Jesus was Their "only" child, and that he had to be conceived through a handmaid... and that Eve was unable to have children in her perfect form too... that's what it's all about imo... Mary was a virgin if that makes anyone feel better, but it was still a huge sacrifice, just as the atonement was a huge sacrifice.

Clarification: The Law of Sarah is most likely not the same thing as polygamy. If it were, D&C 132:65 would have exempted Joseph Smith from the practice of polygamy since Emma most definitely did NOT approve.

Rather, most LDS scholars identify the "Law of Sarah" as an ancillary provision pertaining to polygamy that requires a man to get consent from his wife or wives before taking another plural wife. The man who holds the keys to the sealing power - i.e., the president of the Church - and only him, would be exempt from that law.

[Vort]

Given how sensitive many Church members, especially sisters, are to the subject of polygamy, my policy is to avoid discussing it. This is not difficult for me, because we really do not have much if any understanding of how polygamy might be practiced in the celestial kingdom. So basically almost anything we say is uninformed speculation, which means it is certainly wrong. Since I don't much care to have deep, involved discussions about nonsense (which is what it is to discuss something I know nothing about), it's easiest, safest, and most comfortable for everyone simply to avoid the topic.

On the other hand, I generally am not too fond of it when people impute certain stereotyped attitudes to me based on the shape of my external genitalia. I should not and will not disclaim the possible practice of polygamy, nor swear my undying disgust and hatred of it, just to make someone feel better about things. I do in fact avoid discussing polygamy most of the time, but I am capable of discussing it rationally when the need arises. Those who are not capable of so doing really should avoid the discussion altogether. My opinion, at least, and no finger-pointing is implied.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Vort

[classylady]

Given how sensitive many Church members, especially sisters, are to the subject of polygamy, my policy is to avoid discussing it. This is not difficult for me, because we really do not have much if any understanding of how polygamy might be practiced in the celestial kingdom.

I try to avoid discussing it too. And, I, being a sister in the Gospel, do find it a sensitive subject. That's one of the reasons I haven't contributed anything to this thread. But, I've decided to say a couple of things.

My great (or 2nd great, can't remember which) grandparents, both paternal and maternal, practiced polygamy. Since I come from a 2nd or 3rd wife on both sides, I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't practiced. I love reading their journals. I love my lineage. I'm proud of my heritage. And I'm blessed to have been born into a righteous LDS family. If the practice of polygamy wasn't allowed, would we have had the growth of the Church like we did?

It says in Jacob, and I'm paraphrasing, unless the Lord commands it, and it sounds like he usually only commands plural marriage to build up a righteous people (seed) unto Him, He finds many wives and concubines to be an abomination.

We can only speculate on what will be practiced in the Celestial Kingdom. And I find it hard to believe that there are going to be a lot more women who qualify for the Celestial Kingdom than men. I've often heard that "woman are more righteous than men, so of course there will be more women". But, women are not perfect. They sin, just like men. In D & C 1:31 "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance." And we know that all of us, both male and female can be forgiven of our sins. Even if sins be scarlet, they can be white as snow. So, both men and women will need repentance and the atonement in order to attain the highest degree of glory. Are there that many more women who are going to accept the atonement than men? Also, I don't believe God would send his sons to earth, with the premise, that just because they are men most of them won't make it back to His presence. That doesn't sound like the Father I know, nor the loving Father the LDS believe in.

My other thought on this is if there are going to be so many more women in the Celestial Kingdom, then why are more males born than females? One of the statistics I've read is that globally, there are approximately 105-107 boys born for every 100 girls. The death rate for male babies is higher than females, and as LDS we believe that children who die before the age of accountability are automatically saved. That sounds to me like there aren't going to be that many more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom. (Note: declining male birth rates have been documented the last 30 years or so, and during war there seems to be a surge in male births. Which in the millennia of time, may mean that male and female births would even out somewhat.)

I have decided that I just need to trust in the Lord, have faith, and know that whatever will be, I will be okay with it.

[pam]

I've seen so many threads on this subject. Since I'm unmarried now I had not really thought about it. So I finally started doing some thinking on it as to how I might feel.

At this point, I have absolutely no problem with it in the hereafter. Here on earth? Yes I think I'd have a problem with it.

[Milluw]

Im confused to how you could ever become as one in a marriage like that. I know that if i had a husband, and he had 3 other wives, or just even 1 or 2 i would desire less to create a personal bond to him, or to want to open up to him. That would be one lonely eternity.

[Vort]

Im confused to how you could ever become as one in a marriage like that. I know that if i had a husband, and he had 3 other wives, or just even 1 or 2 i would desire less to create a personal bond to him, or to want to open up to him. That would be one lonely eternity.

I doubt any of us really understand it. It's not given to us to understand. At the moment, at least, it does not apply to us.

[ztodd]

I've seen so many threads on this subject. Since I'm unmarried now I had not really thought about it. So I finally started doing some thinking on it as to how I might feel.

At this point, I have absolutely no problem with it in the hereafter. Here on earth? Yes I think I'd have a problem with it.

I'm curious what you believe the difference would be in the hereafter.

[BadWolf]

Im confused to how you could ever become as one in a marriage like that. I know that if i had a husband, and he had 3 other wives, or just even 1 or 2 i would desire less to create a personal bond to him, or to want to open up to him. That would be one lonely eternity.

So..... One can only really love, cherish, and want to bond with their oldest child, right?

The heart has an amazing capacity for love. Instead of love dividing, in a healthy/balanced setting... The heart multiplies. Love just really isn't finite. When we love someone, that love becomes synergistic... ADDING to our heart, instead of diminishing it.

Polygamy works as well as any form of marriage. In this life there are strong, loving, laughter filled marriages where spouses pour their energy into each other... Whether its a twosome or moresome. And there are abusive or just plain and simple bad marriages with twosomes or moresomes.

I've spent my life traveling. I've spent considerable time in Islamic culture, and in Western culture (and some time in wildly different cultures that I'm not even going to muddy the waters with, right now, but the following holds true for them as well):

In my experience and observation, what makes a good marriage & family is NOT math. 2 spouses, 5 spouses... 0 children, 4 children, 14 children... 1 generation home, 3 generation home... It really all matters not a single iota. What MATTERS is how people love (as a verb/action) and respect each other. They dynamics and actions and spirits of all of those involved.

In many ways, a 2 person marriage with 1 or 2 children is arguably the HARDEST form out there. That's what is culturally 'normal' here in the US, though... So we see it as easy, and every unfamiliar way as impossibly frought. Which always makes me smile a little.

Sort of like how most people I know outside the LDS church talk about how Mormon women are subjugated by their husbands and the church. I'm sure there are some examples where that's true... But, in most cases, its just so completely wrong as to make me laugh a little. Not the LDS women *I* know!!!

In healthy/balanced polygynous marriages... There is as much love/friendship/bonding/conflict/benefits/challenges as there are in healthy/balanced 2 person marriages. Ditto one child families or four, eight, twelve, etc. child families. They're different from each other, for sure, but neither set is lacking or wrong. Just different.

I'm hearing you and others say they 'know' you/they would feel xyz... But I would suggest the 'knowing' is a lot like a non-parent saying 'When I have kids I'll NEVER ______." Right. Up. Until. They. Have. Kids. :) and then their perspective shifts with added knowledge and experience.

I suspect most are, rather, afraid of losing what they already have for something that...at least on the surface... Sounds like it will cause loss ...instead of gain.

I don't know how our Heavenly Father is going to work things. But I DO suspect it'll be pretty Rockin'. Whether its how I would work things, or the polar opposite, or something I'd never even considered. (More often than not, I find it to be the latter. And what a wild and amazing ride: )

[mordorbund]

I guess I'm behind the curve on claiming celebrity celestial wives. I was more concerned about whether or not I get to keep my Glocks. I think I should ask to be buried with my Glock 17. That way when I "burst forth" from the grave, I will already have it with me to take to the next life!!! Just think, if I become perfected, that means I shoot a perfect score every single time!!!

Just what we need... Zombies with guns.

[Backroads]

I really don't have any strong feelings one way or the other. I think I used to be a little more okay with it--now that I'm married I'm a little more husband-jealous. But I've never had a problem with the concept.

I will admit I do not like how it is sometimes practiced. I do have polygamous relatives--currently. It's no Warren Jeffs level, but the 3rd cousins who have left the culture say they prefer monogamous relationships.

[garryw]

I have a neighbor who is for some reason convinced that her husband will be a polygamist and that she will pick his other 3 wives. She is very serious and I always get a chuckle when she goes off on the subject and her husband's face turns red.

I can only assume she's wanting 3 women she can boss around because she currently is the "alpha male" in the family. Perhaps she wants to increase her kingdom, or just a free babysitter.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I have a neighbor who is for some reason convinced that her husband will be a polygamist and that she will pick his other 3 wives. She is very serious and I always get a chuckle when she goes off on the subject and her husband's face turns red.

I can only assume she's wanting 3 women she can boss around because she currently is the "alpha male" in the family. Perhaps she wants to increase her kingdom, or just a free babysitter.

Which supports the view that we have no information as to why polygamy would be needed or beneficial in the next life.

[mirkwood]

We have a lady in our ward who married a two time widower. Her comment was that she would rather be a third wife to a good man then a first wife to a bad one.

I just don't worry about this issue. Either we will practice it in the next life and be fine with it or we won't. It's God's decision on that not mine, and I'll go with whatever way He wants it.

[garryw]

We have a lady in our ward who married a two time widower.

There's a guy in my ward who seems quite young (37ish), his first 2 wives died and he's on his 3rd. Apparently his 3rd wife talked about it during relf soc. She was "best friends" with his second wife and now considers them to share a husband, along with the first wife.

I have to admit that would have been an interesting relf soc meeting.

Also, there's a guy at my work (lds) with 6 young kids, his wife died, he remarried. I nominated his second wife for sainthood.

[Seminarysnoozer]

We have a lady in our ward who married a two time widower. Her comment was that she would rather be a third wife to a good man then a first wife to a bad one.

I just don't worry about this issue. Either we will practice it in the next life and be fine with it or we won't. It's God's decision on that not mine, and I'll go with whatever way He wants it.

I wouldn't worry about an issue that is not an issue either.

Nobody is going to be married to anybody who is not "good". That statement made by the "lady in your ward" is ridiculous.

[Seminarysnoozer]

There's a guy in my ward who seems quite young (37ish), his first 2 wives died and he's on his 3rd. Apparently his 3rd wife talked about it during relf soc. She was "best friends" with his second wife and now considers them to share a husband, along with the first wife.

I have to admit that would have been an interesting relf soc meeting.

Also, there's a guy at my work (lds) with 6 young kids, his wife died, he remarried. I nominated his second wife for sainthood.

One of my good friends is married to her second husband in the temple after her first husband who she also married in the temple died in Iraq and she has two kids from the first husband.

... this doesn't prove or show anything about the potential or need for polygamy in the next life for me or this friend of mine.

[mirkwood]

That statement made by the "lady in your ward" is ridiculous.

You are right, cause it is not possible that a person making it to the CK could be a poor spouse to another person. Not possible at all.

[RMGuy]

I guess I am legitimately confused.

I'm troubled to hear that we feel we have no revealed words on this matter: What about Joseph, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Wilford Woodruf, etc. Do they not count?

On what basis are we concluding that this is not doctrine, or that we don't know these things? Currently if a sister in the church has been married and sealed in the temple and her spouse dies, she is eligible to be remarried in the temple, but NOT sealed to the second husband. If a brother in the church is married and sealed in the temple and his spouse dies, he is eligible to be remarried AND sealed to the second spouse. In the latter example are we claiming that one of those sealings is not valid?

I think this is one of the hard questions that we in the church have to answer: What is doctrine? That probably deserves its own thread, but:

If we look for examples from our own time: Elder Oaks refers to both June Dixon and Kristen McMain as his eternal companion. Is he wrong?

If we look at the scriptures: D&C 132:15-20. Elder Oaks and many others like him were married and sealed by this Holy Spirit of promise. Will those individuals not be sealed in the world to come? Are the scriptures wrong?

If we look at the words of a prophet:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I know it is false... Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith,... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected" - Joseph F. Smith

Now we understand that according to the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet. I get that, but in the absence of new or continuing revelation on a subject, then would we not keep with the last information that we received.

Up until second manifesto in 1904, the church still sanctioned some plural marriages, and up until that time it was taught that not only was polygamy a practice, but that it was required for exaltation. It wasn't until 1933, that the first presidency issued an official letter detailing that polygamy was not REQUIRED (emphasis added) for exaltation.

So it would seem to me, that whether doctrine is established through scripture, prophetic voice in conference, practice, or official letters from the 1st presidency we have some good indications here that polygamy will be practiced in the next life. Perhaps not by everyone, and perhaps our feelings from this world will play a part in that, after all Alma 34:34 says that same spirit will have power to possess our bodies in that eternal world.

Of course, if there is still confusion, you can always pray about it.

-RM

[Dravin]

I know I thanked it, but I wanted to thank it again RMGuy.

I think there is a tendency for us to steer clear of some of the implications and teachings about polygamy because it makes us uncomfortable. I think there are a couple reasons for that, the first most being personal discomfort with the idea, and a second one being, for lack of more elegant phrasing, PR. In our effort to explain that we don't practice polygamy now some go too far in almost portraying it as a mistake, a historical curio. I remember more than one discussion with my companions on my mission when I felt they were taking that route, while the practice has been discontinued the doctrine involved hasn't been repudiated. It's, "I the Lord am not commanding it." and thus we default as explained in Jacob.

To be fair, when I encounter those few who get a wistful far-off look in their eye when they talk about the reinstitution of polygamy at some future point it makes me uncomfortable. So I'm not immune to the potential discomforts surrounding polygamy.

Edited October 16, 2012 by Dravin

[Seminarysnoozer]

I guess I am legitimately confused.

I'm troubled to hear that we feel we have no revealed words on this matter: What about Joseph, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Wilford Woodruf, etc. Do they not count?

On what basis are we concluding that this is not doctrine, or that we don't know these things? Currently if a sister in the church has been married and sealed in the temple and her spouse dies, she is eligible to be remarried in the temple, but NOT sealed to the second husband. If a brother in the church is married and sealed in the temple and his spouse dies, he is eligible to be remarried AND sealed to the second spouse. In the latter example are we claiming that one of those sealings is not valid?

I think this is one of the hard questions that we in the church have to answer: What is doctrine? That probably deserves its own thread, but:

If we look for examples from our own time: Elder Oaks refers to both June Dixon and Kristen McMain as his eternal companion. Is he wrong?

If we look at the scriptures: D&C 132:15-20. Elder Oaks and many others like him were married and sealed by this Holy Spirit of promise. Will those individuals not be sealed in the world to come? Are the scriptures wrong?

If we look at the words of a prophet:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my protest against this idea, for I know it is false... Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith,... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected" - Joseph F. Smith

Now we understand that according to the 14 fundamentals of following the prophet that a living prophet is more important than a dead prophet. I get that, but in the absence of new or continuing revelation on a subject, then would we not keep with the last information that we received.

Up until second manifesto in 1904, the church still sanctioned some plural marriages, and up until that time it was taught that not only was polygamy a practice, but that it was required for exaltation. It wasn't until 1933, that the first presidency issued an official letter detailing that polygamy was not REQUIRED (emphasis added) for exaltation.

So it would seem to me, that whether doctrine is established through scripture, prophetic voice in conference, practice, or official letters from the 1st presidency we have some good indications here that polygamy will be practiced in the next life. Perhaps not by everyone, and perhaps our feelings from this world will play a part in that, after all Alma 34:34 says that same spirit will have power to possess our bodies in that eternal world.

Of course, if there is still confusion, you can always pray about it.

-RM

So, you believe that whatever commandment we are given in this life, by definition, it is one that will have to continue onto the next?

What about animal sacrifice? What about circumcision? What about fast offerings? We will definitely be continuing that law in the next life? What about partaking of the sacrament, we will be definitely doing that every Sunday in the next life?

I disagree with your assumption that a law given in this life is one that definitely has to continue onto the next. There are laws and commandments designed to help us through this life and to bring us closer to God and His will that will be overcome and overpowered by simply being in His presence. There are examples of laws that are fulfilled in our gospel, meaning we don't practice them anymore and never will.

They could still be laws that for those people during that time in which they are given are the set of laws by which they will be judged worthy or not to enter into the Celestial Kingdom and only in that way continue onto the day of final judgement for them but not necessarily for us. ... otherwise we all better go find some lambs to sacrifice.

[garryw]

88:38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

I don't think this is terribly complex. We do know the bounds and conditions of this law in our current kingdom.

Do we know the bounds and conditions in the next? I think it's rational and easy to conclude that both monogomy and polygamy are the law of the celestial kingdom.

A great deal of sacrifice was made to establish polygamy during the restoration. My own interpretation of history is that it directly cost Joseph Smith his life.

[RMGuy]

So, you believe that whatever commandment we are given in this life, by definition, it is one that will have to continue onto the next?

What about animal sacrifice? What about circumcision? What about fast offerings? We will definitely be continuing that law in the next life? What about partaking of the sacrament, we will be definitely doing that every Sunday in the next life?

I disagree with your assumption that a law given in this life is one that definitely has to continue onto the next. There are laws and commandments designed to help us through this life and to bring us closer to God and His will that will be overcome and overpowered by simply being in His presence. There are examples of laws that are fulfilled in our gospel, meaning we don't practice them anymore and never will.

They could still be laws that for those people during that time in which they are given are the set of laws by which they will be judged worthy or not to enter into the Celestial Kingdom and only in that way continue onto the day of final judgement for them but not necessarily for us. ... otherwise we all better go find some lambs to sacrifice.

SS, I don't know that I specifically addressed whether or not all laws/commandments given in this life will need to continue into the next. However, in the case of polygamy I think this one is pretty clear. We continue to practice polygamy today in an eternal form. Elder Oaks is sealed to multiple spouses for time and FOR ALL ETERNITY. So are many, many other brethren of the church.

So do we believe what the sealing says and promises? Do we believe that he will be with both spouses for eternity, or don't we?

-RM

[SpiritDragon]

Hi everyone,

This is my first post ever, but I couldn't resist the feeling to say something in this forum.

I find the scriptures and teaching of the church are really quite plain and simple on this doctrine, which is the Lord's way.

Let me start in the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 3:14

"I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him."

Matthew 16:19 (See also Matthew 18:18)

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

These scriptures make it plain that God intends His works to last forever, including marriage. This discusses the Priesthood sealing power being given first to Peter to perform ordinances that are to be valid in the hereafter. Any talk about it being questionable whether eternal marriages sealed by the holy spirit of promise are of effect (monogomaous or polygymous) is to deny what the Lord has spoken.

Mark 10:2-9

"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

These verses teach us that God did not intend for divorces to exist. Why then would He supposedly condone the mass divorce of His people in heaven who have multiple ETERNAL sealings, does God contradict himself?

Now that being said there is also doctrine to support that we won't be attaining additional marriages in the Celestial Kingdom either. We will keep the covenant relationships we enter into in mortality, but by the time of final judgment it is finished. We will not be stealing other people's spouses because they are eternally bound... and those that are single will be ministering angels and not getting married either.

Matt 22:

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Some may see this passage of scripture as contradictory to my other points, or even disproving the doctrine of eternal marriage altogether. However, I see it in perfect keeping with the other teachings. Jesus does not say that marriage will not be of effect in heaven, but that it won't be taking place in heaven. Furthermore only those marriages authorized to be binding have a continuance in the next life, so all those who are not sealed for time and all eternity will be as the angels of heaven and will not enjoy the higher blessings of exaltation as promised to Abraham.

Therefore it seems clear to me that eternal companionships will exist in heaven. Some will be polygamous and some monogamous, but the state they are in after final judgment will be final and binding.

Edited October 16, 2012 by SpiritDragon