Polygamy in the afterlife?

[Seminarysnoozer]

I would call Lucifer, Son of the Morning, God's seed of course. The word Lucifer means Shining One. Who do we suppose named him that?

He rebelled and lost his inheritance, becoming Satan. Is he God's seed now? Sure, a bad seed.

Is he the seed of Abraham? Nope.

As with many words in the gospel, "seed" is a metaphor. If you want to interchange the metaphoric meaning with the secular meaning in the same sentence then I think you are just going to confuse people.

How can Satan have "seed"? As in, Moses 4: "21 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed; and he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

And clearly stated in Matthew 13 : "37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels."

The Devil sewed his seed on the Earth? Now, come on, at some point you have to let the right side of the brain have some input and turn down the concrete thinking.

We have already shared the definition of "seed" from LDS.org and it is obviously used as a metaphor for the building of characters similar to God's. The secular use includes all offspring but not when we are talking about the word "seed" in an LDS religious context. Or it has to be clarified as one or the other.

If "seed" is just offspring then I am afraid bacteria and virus' would have us humans beat in the glory department by a factor of 1/2 million to one. We could never catch up to that.

[jerome1232]

If "seed" is just offspring then I am afraid bacteria and virus' would have us humans beat in the glory department by a factor of 1/2 million to one. We could never catch up to that.

"Technically" viruses and bacteria don't have "offspring" they don't sexually reproduce. Bacteria simply split in half or copy themselves, viruses replicate by attacking specific cells of specific organisms, it's also not a sexual reproduction.

Really I'm just saying the comparison isn't relevant.

[circusboy01]

the idea of polygamy is also fundamentally flawed. male : female ratio is 50 : 50. it's oppressing of women and i just couldnt support it.

So if you made it to the Celestial Kingdom and found that polygamy was practiced there. What would you do? Ask Heavenly Father to send you back down to the Terrestrial Kingdom?

Brother Ray

[Seminarysnoozer]

"Technically" viruses and bacteria don't have "offspring" they don't sexually reproduce. Bacteria simply split in half or copy themselves, viruses replicate by attacking specific cells of specific organisms, it's also not a sexual reproduction.

Really I'm just saying the comparison isn't relevant.

From a biology textbook; "The one parent bacterium then splits into two progeny bacteria. This process is known as binary fission. The time that it takes one bacterium to accumulate enough material to split is known as the generation length. This generation length varies greatly between different genus and species of bacteria, from as short as twenty minutes for E. coli to as long as twenty four hours for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The population growth curve for bacteria is an exponential curve. With each generation, the number of bacteria doubles. In ideal circumstances (i.e. a ready supply of nutrients and a benign environment), a single E. coli bacterium can grow to become over one million bacteria in as little as three and a half hours. For one Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacterium to generate the same number of bacteria, again under ideal circumstances, may take as long as twenty days."

"Progeny" is synonymous with offspring. They asexually reproduce, you are right, but still one begets another. Unless you think bacteria and virus' are spontaneously begotten. (In any case - thanks for trying to detract from my point, lol)

[Seminarysnoozer]

So if you made it to the Celestial Kingdom and found that polygamy was practiced there. What would you do? Ask Heavenly Father to send you back down to the Terrestrial Kingdom?

Brother Ray

My carnal being would ask; "So, women are not a helpmeet, we are a lesser being?" and then, you are right, I would be probably kicked down to the Terrestrial Kingdom for asking such a question. .... Hopefully I can shed my carnal being by then.

[circusboy01]

My carnal being would ask; "So, women are not a helpmeet, we are a lesser being?" and then, you are right, I would be probably kicked down to the Terrestrial Kingdom for asking such a question. .... Hopefully I can shed my carnal being by then.

In the Celestial kingdom I see Men with multiple wives as long as they were married to them in the Temple. I also see men with only one wife, if he only had one Temple Marriage.

I also see women with more than one husband.If she was married in the Temple, her husband passed and she married in the Temple again. and so on. I do not believe that man will be given any more wives than the ones he married in the Temple while he was here on earth.

How could you think that being allowed to enter the Celestial Kingdom would make you a lesser being?

Your right you would need to shed your carnal being. So will we all. Brother Ray

[Vort]

My carnal being would ask; "So, women are not a helpmeet, we are a lesser being?" and then, you are right, I would be probably kicked down to the Terrestrial Kingdom for asking such a question.

Ironic, given that for two or three (perhaps more) generations, the Church Priesthood body has been taught that they are, in effect, lesser beings to their wives.

[classylady]

Ironic, given that for two or three (perhaps more) generations, the Church Priesthood body has been taught that they are, in effect, lesser beings to their wives.

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?

[Vort]

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?

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

[classylady]

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

Hmm. Do you think the church leaders (as a whole) are moving away from this line of thought? Or do you think it's still taught?

I do believe that men need to be reminded to respect women, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to elevate women above men. I, personally, think both men and women need to be reminded that we have different strengths, stewardships, and abilities that need to be respected by both genders.

[Vort]

Hmm. Do you think the church leaders (as a whole) are moving away from this line of thought? Or do you think it's still taught?

It is still taught in places and at times, but in general it is neither as common nor as explicit as it used to be.

[lds2]

Here's a little bunny trail in this thread but I've been thinking about this a lot lately...

Looking at the state of our existing marriages with the incivility and even abuse do we really need to focus so much on later? Seriously, many couples aren't good to each other and/or don't really want each other now.

For many couples who are happy while young, as they get older this seems to become more of an issue.

Barring those who are unfortunate enough to truly be married to a sociopath, can a man or woman who is unhappy with their spouse now hope to get a "better one" in the future? I don't think in most cases that would be possible.

We are told that if we are unhappy in this life we will take that unhappiness with us into the next life.

Heavenly Father has promised that if we are truly faithful and follow the example of his Son on this Earth we will be happy there. That is the goal I keep my eye set on and try to let the rest fall where it may. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

Ironic, given that for two or three (perhaps more) generations, the Church Priesthood body has been taught that they are, in effect, lesser beings to their wives.

My response was in jest. I know I don't do it very often, but that was one of them.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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 agree with you.

"Traditionally, the title help meet is understood to mean a helper fit for him, a helper like-the-opposite-of-him, or a help corresponding to him. In other words, it suggests

an equal, but opposite, half of the whole." (Gaskill, The Savior and the Serpent, p. 57-58)

And the words of a prophet; Howard Hunter, "A man who holds the priesthood accepts his wife as a partner in the leadership of the home and family with full knowledge of and full participation in all decisions relating thereto. Of necessity there must be in the Church and in the home a presiding officer (see D&C 107:21). By divine appointment, the responsibility to preside in the home rests upon the priesthood holder (see Moses 4:22). The Lord intended that the wife be a helpmeet for man (meet means equal)—that is, a companion equal and necessary in full partnership. Presiding in righteousness necessitates a shared responsibility between husband and wife; together you act with knowledge and participation in all family matters. For a man to operate independent of or without regard to the feelings and counsel of his wife in governing the family is to exercise unrighteous dominion."

So, those who are wishing there be polygamy in the Celestial world; how is it that the wife could be in "full partnership" when there are other partners? That does not sound like full partnership to me. Please explain.

From President Hinckley, "I do not regard her as being in second place to Adam. She was placed at his side as an helpmeet. They were together in the Garden, they were expelled together, and they labored together in the world into which they were driven."

[Misshalfway]

I've never felt comfortable with the teaching that by nature women are more righteous than men. In my soul, I feel that men and women have equal capacity for both righteousness and wickedness. Although, I wouldn't mind getting extra points for having to go through labor pains.

On the subject of polygamy, I just can't stomach it. As I balance all the stuff we do know, and all the stuff we don't, and all the speculation, and all the arguments either way......I still find the idea of sharing my husband repulsive. And I know very few men than can handle even the thought of sharing their wives. But men haven't been asked to sacrifice in this way. So, I don't think men fully appreciate what this means for women (not all of course.) Perhaps I'm wrong. I actually hope I'm wrong.

And....Of course I'd submit to the will of the Lord. But that is different than liking it. Obeying polygamy on earth for a short period to fulfill the short term need of the Lord is one thing. Doing it with my eternity...the one that is suppose to be filled with rest....well, that is something else. I don't see myself being happy for eternity if I'm not equally yoked in fidelity with my spouse.

[garryw]

And the words of a prophet; Howard Hunter

Ironically Howard W. Hunter is himself sealed to 2 wives. He is the only LDS president during our lifetimes that married two women. It will be interesting to see which one he discards and which he keeps. Perhaps he will tell his second wife:

"remember that covenant I made with you in the temple for eternity? I was kidding"

Not likely.

[Seminarysnoozer]

On the subject of polygamy, I just can't stomach it. As I balance all the stuff we do know, and all the stuff we don't, and all the speculation, and all the arguments either way......I still find the idea of sharing my husband repulsive. And I know very few men than can handle even the thought of sharing their wives. But men haven't been asked to sacrifice in this way. So, I don't think men fully appreciate what this means for women (not all of course.) Perhaps I'm wrong. I actually hope I'm wrong.

I agree, and on top of what you have described, I can't stomach the idea of being "married" or sealed in that way to other women. If I am one with my husband and he with another is one then by definition me and the other wife are one. That is the aspect that I cannot stomach that doesn't seem to fit with the gospel I know. Now, someone might argue, 'well the husband is "one" with wife A and separately "one" with wife B'. If that is the case then, by definition the woman is a lesser being and is not "equal" to her husband and does not share in responsibility and equality everything with her husband because there would be the other wife stuff that is not shared. Or it is shared, then by definition the wives are "married" to each other. All around, to me it is very bizarre situation created in Heaven. At the same time, I can see its purposes here on Earth and that commandment does not detract from my testimony at all.

I think one of the things that have to be in consideration is that the covenant associated with eternal marriage performed here is like every other covenant, it makes a person eligible for such blessings for eternity. It is the eligibility that is binding!!!! There are other parts to it that allow modifications be made to such covenants, such as worthiness - that is written into the contract.

Just because someone changes the name of a beneficiary on an insurance policy doesn't make the policy invalid. It is still binding and worth getting even if there are changes made later.

[Vort]

Ironically Howard W. Hunter is himself sealed to 2 wives. He is the only LDS president during our lifetimes that married two women.

This is untrue. President Joseph Fielding Smith was married to three women (not simultaneously, of course).

[RMGuy]

Perhaps Garry hasn't been around as long as some of us, so in his lifetime only President Hunter...lol!

-RM

[garryw]

This is untrue. President Joseph Fielding Smith was married to three women (not simultaneously, of course).

When I said "our lifetime" I meant presidents who were not dead before I was born in '76. I forget there are older people running around this forum.

[Vort]

When I said "our lifetime" I meant presidents who were not dead before I was born in '76. I forget there are older people running around this forum.

Your attention, please: 49 is now considered "older".

If you were born in 1876, as you claim, many prophets, starting with Brigham Young, were sealed to multiple women. And you are significantly older than 102.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Vort

[RMGuy]

Vort,

once you reach 50 you get to start counting backwards.

-RM

[Vort]

Vort,

once you reach 50 you get to start counting backwards.

-RM

You know, I always suspected there was a rule like that.

[garryw]

It looks like Jospeh Fielding Smith's successor (Harold B Lee) was also sealed to 2 women. Assuming Elder Nelson doesn't die, he would be the next, followed by Oaks.

[Anddenex]

So, those who are wishing there be polygamy in the Celestial world; how is it that the wife could be in "full partnership" when there are other partners? That does not sound like full partnership to me. Please explain.

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.