Law of Sarah

[Drpepper]

I know the subject of polygamy can often cause a great division of opinions and debate.

However during some personal study of Jacob ch 2 and D&C 132 the question arose in my mind if woman really had an option to reject their husbands receiving other wives.

Vs 61 mentions that the first wife needs to give consent but further vs below indicate that if she dosen't then she will be destroyed. Which makes me think there is an option without being an option.

It kind of reminded me of henry fords famous quote. "you can have any colour you like as long as it black"

So what i was really trying to workout is did woman really have the option to say no to their husbands without facing destruction?

If any one has an constructive insight that would be great. "Emphasis on the constructive".

[Praetorian_Brow]

Yes, they do have the option of saying no, just as they have the option to have a lasting marriage. However, if she was raised to believe that the husband had more divine right to dictate terms, then it wouldn't be surprising that she would believe that she has no choice. The verse is encouraging spousal dialogue as I am sure managing a harem is only as good as the power and agreement of the first wife and the role fulfilling of the subsequent ones.

Besides, the question doesn't apply, unless you plan on being an illegal polygamist. The theories about polygamy to reach the highest degree, is also unproven and open to speculation.

[Traveler]

I know the subject of polygamy can often cause a great division of opinions and debate.

However during some personal study of Jacob ch 2 and D&C 132 the question arose in my mind if woman really had an option to reject their husbands receiving other wives.

Vs 61 mentions that the first wife needs to give consent but further vs below indicate that if she dosen't then she will be destroyed. Which makes me think there is an option without being an option.

It kind of reminded me of henry fords famous quote. "you can have any colour you like as long as it black"

So what i was really trying to workout is did woman really have the option to say no to their husbands without facing destruction?

If any one has an constructive insight that would be great. "Emphasis on the constructive".

I think you have missed an important point. It is not so much a option to follow their husbands as it is to obey a commandment from G-d. To begin we choose our fist spouse beyond that there must be a commandment - not just in our hearts but direct from the prophet of G-d (or his messenger) that hold the keys.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

My thoughts follow suit with Traveler. When I have previously contemplated these verses the first thought that entered into my heart and mind -- commandment.

The next thought is our agency in connection with covenants and commandments. When a person has covenanted with God, they in essence relinquish some of their agency. Example, when we attend BYU, we agree / promise to keep the "honor code." Thus, those who have chosen to attend BYU have relinquished some of their agency to choose other standards of dress, hairstyle, facial hair, etc...

When a person decides to make a choice against their covenants, against their promises (those that have knowledge) then they have decided to come out in open rebellion against God, or the "honor code " as in the example.

I would assume the "destruction" aspect is no different than a man / woman who are discovered in adultery. Adultery is a commandment. People have a choice to keep the commandment or not to keep the commandment. If they choose to break this commandment, then they have come out in open rebellion and a punishment is affixed for open rebellion, because a law/commandment has been broken.

We cannot think to break the commandments of God without some sort of consequence. If polygamy were to become a commandment again, by covenant, as in the temple -- then all people who disregard this commandment are faced with opposing God, pride, and the consequences of their pride.

[Just_A_Guy]

I read verses 64-65 as applying only to the wife of a man who "holds the keys of this power". The only single man who holds the keys to the sealing power at any given time, is the presiding high priest of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Which makes sense, when you think about it. How can the prophet teach the Saints a law that he himself is not practicing?

[Guest]

Such an easy thing for men to talk about.

I hope you all understand how difficult a topic this can be for women. But I also think that for those of us (women AND men) who are disgusted at the thought, there's a good reason for that. It is not a principle that is acceptable right now. Jacob 2 is the best place to get some insight on that.

I have struggled so much with this topic, and the possibility of having to live that principle in the next life. I've just had to make peace with the fact that worrying about it is just borrowing trouble, since we have no idea whether it will be necessary or not. And most of all, if we were called to do it, it would be with a greater understanding than we have now, and I have no doubt we would be blessed with everything we need, emotionally, to be able to handle it. The Lord gives no commandments, save He provides a way for us to accomplish what He has commanded. The Lord does not want us to be in pain or miserable or hurting. If it is something we're all called to do (and my opinion is that that's a big "if"), it will be something we'll be able to do happily. As incredibly hard as that is for me to imagine.

[prisonchaplain]

Polygamy is one of those "juicy" topics for non-LDS. Personally, I've never considered it that important in determining whether a group was right or true. Besides, thought I, it was practiced somewhat in Old Testament times.

So I did a quick search today, to see what the Jewish take on polygamy is. As I expected, the Law of Moses does not prohibit the practice, but scholars believe it was never considered the idea family pattern.

Does Jewish Law Forbid Polygamy? - Marriage

(Note that Chabad Lubavitch is an ultra orthodox sect of Judaism)

So, to my question...was polygamy seen as an ideal in early LDS practice and teaching? If so, what about the practice was understood to have made it particularly blessed? Finally, is there an understanding that the practice will some day be revived?

[Anddenex]

So, to my question...was polygamy seen as an ideal in early LDS practice and teaching? If so, what about the practice was understood to have made it particularly blessed? Finally, is there an understanding that the practice will some day be revived?

1st question - No, yet we find in scripture Jacob 2: 29-30, a reason provided by the prophet Jacob giving reason to its need at times.

2nd question - I personally feel the ideal has always been "one man one woman" who become "one flesh," however, just as with any commandment we are blessed when we follow the order as commanded.

3rd question - Yes there is contemplation that it will again be instructed, we understand all things will be restored, which means every principle that has ever been taught in any dispensation will come forth in the fullness of the dispensation of times. However, I wonder if Joseph Smith's time up until 1890 if this has already been fulfilled.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm going to respectfully disagree a bit with Anddenex's response to the first/second questions. VERY early LDS thought certainly promoted monogamy as the ideal; but by the Utah period there were some off-the-cuff statements from some authorities to the effect that polygamy would be a requisite to enter the highest degree of heaven. And the highest echelon of Church leaders from the 1850s through the end of the century consisted almost entirely of polygamists.

As for the rationale, I think it boils down to one word: children. There may have been some "marriages of convenience" for penniless widows or "dynastic marriages" between the relatives of Church leaders; but the scripture Anddenex cites as presenting the monogamous norm also gives the reason for any exceptions: to raise up seed unto the Lord; and (presumably) to do so on a larger scale than would otherwise be possible with monogamy.

[Letrell]

I am so not as righteous as the women of the ancient days. If my husband were to be called to have another wife, I would smile...say okay, and I certainly would not argue it or question the Lord. However, sorry, I don't believe any of us are going to be called to live the Law of Sarah. Obviously, I am no prophet and I could be wrong...I sincerely doubt it.

That said, this is 2013. I would even go so far as to help her prepare for the wedding. Then on the wedding day, I would kiss my husband on the cheek, kiss her on the cheek...wish them nothing but the best, and take my almost 60 year old butt south to live out my days in warmth. My kids are grown. I am not raising someone else's.

Would I care if he has a 2nd wife? Not really. Just means he probably won't nag me so much. LOL.

I don't mean to make light of this, but honestly, everyone has opinions but fact is...the Lord told us more or less to leave it be.

Doctrine and Covenants 132

I put the link there for non-members and/or those that don't have access to the Doctrine & Covenants

("The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days. Although most of the sections are directed to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the messages, warnings, and exhortations are for the benefit of all mankind and contain an invitation to all people everywhere to hear the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ, speaking to them for their temporal well-being and their everlasting salvation.")

In the final verse, verse 66, the Lord says, "And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen."

Soooo, I ain't gonna touch this one

[Drpepper]

I read verses 64-65 as applying only to the wife of a man who "holds the keys of this power". The only single man who holds the keys to the sealing power at any given time, is the presiding high priest of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Which makes sense, when you think about it. How can the prophet teach the Saints a law that he himself is not practicing?

Ok, I never looked at it that way. The vs applies to Emma regarding polygamy. I noticed some people said that its about keeping the commandments and I understand that but some commandments require a lot more than others and if I put myself in Emma's shoes, wow, I would have needed some kind of vision from god on this one I think.

Eowyn. Why do you think this is such an easy topic for men to discuss? I don't find it easy at all.

I did have one other question regarding this practice that I have floated back and forth over my mind for many years. Knowing that this practice is seen by many outside of the church as a stain upon the church. Why did The Lord seem to frustrate his own missionary efforts. By this I mean nearly everyone I meet new for the first time and I tell them I'm a Mormon I'm often greeted with the response. How many wives do u have? It's like a hurdle I have to jump straight away before I can even begin to discuss the wonderful truths of the gospel. Surely God would have known this.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Drpepper

[sarah331]

My husband has always explained it like Just_A_Guy -- it sprung from a "need" to help increase the population etc.

I do find it interesting D&C 132 uses the word "concubines" to explain the history of polygamy in the Bible. Perhaps it's supposed to help give a little distance between then and now. Is there any scripture to explain polygamy in the after life -- that is, for those not sealed to more than one person on earth? Or are PPs referring only to the case if a wife dies and the man seals to someone else after?

[sarah331]

DrPepper, maybe it's to give an immediate connection/question so you can better educate people I try to take the opportunity from thoughtless (or just plain stupid) questions and comments about my twins. Educate, educate, educate!!

Though it's tiring, I'm sure.

[Drpepper]

DrPepper, maybe it's to give an immediate connection/question so you can better educate people I try to take the opportunity from thoughtless (or just plain stupid) questions and comments about my twins. Educate, educate, educate!!

Though it's tiring, I'm sure.

Ha ha, I can think of better connection questions to be dealing with :)

[estradling75]

I am coming to view polygamy much the same way as I view the Law of Moses.

Both were required of the Lord. While they were required the prophets spoke truthfully on how it was required that people do it or they wouldn't make it. Both altered the culture of the people doing it making them different from the people around them, and help bond the church at the time as a distinct group.

Then the Lords purposes were accomplished and the church was release from the burden of the law in both cases.

[Guest]

Eowyn. Why do you think this is such an easy topic for men to discuss? I don't find it easy at all.

Well, I houldn't say all men. But I think from a natural man perspective, the thought isn't altogether repulsive. Plenty of women to fill every need. If one is in a bad mood, move on to the next. You don't have to share any of them, but they have to share you.

[Anddenex]

I'm going to respectfully disagree a bit with Anddenex's response to the first/second questions.

Disagreeing with Anddenex is not allowed...Rule #15.1.1, if it is not in the rule book -- pam -- please make it so.

[prisonchaplain]

I am coming to view polygamy much the same way as I view the Law of Moses.

Both were required of the Lord. While they were required the prophets spoke truthfully on how it was required that people do it or they wouldn't make it. Both altered the culture of the people doing it making them different from the people around them, and help bond the church at the time as a distinct group.

Then the Lords purposes were accomplished and the church was release from the burden of the law in both cases.

If polygamy is like the Law of Moses, do you think that it has been fulfilled, and will not be revived in the future?

[jerome1232]

Well, I houldn't say all men. But I think from a natural man perspective, the thought isn't altogether repulsive. Plenty of women to fill every need. If one is in a bad mood, move on to the next. You don't have to share any of them, but they have to share you.

If we are going to go with stereotyping genders, then I would think women would love to have the "burden" of satisfying those sex hungry men with a few other ladies.

[prisonchaplain]

Disagreeing with Anddenex is not allowed...Rule #15.1.1, if it is not in the rule book -- pam -- please make it so.

Remind me not to be vigorously chewing gum when I read posts by Anddenex that have green smilecons in them.

[Guest]

Well, I houldn't say all men. But I think from a natural man perspective, the thought isn't altogether repulsive. Plenty of women to fill every need. If one is in a bad mood, move on to the next. You don't have to share any of them, but they have to share you.

I don't see it this way. I see it as one unit helping each other out. Each sister helping all the other sisters, all sisters upholding the priesthood, one priesthood authority presiding over the family.

To be honest, I don't find it in any way repulsive if it is conducted in the same way I see all of my family work together as one unit. It only gives me pause when I dwell on the sexual aspect of it as I find my sexual relationship with my husband a very special thing between him and me. But then I think of how Joseph Smith has no other children except for those with Emma and I think to myself that the sexual aspect of the relationship is not a requirement in a polygamous marriage.

[bytor2112]

It is easy to get hung up on plural marriage because the physical still rules our lives and we are not yet able to completely live by the Spirit. Doubtless for those who receive Eternal Life, plural marriage will be part of that blessing and it will be an immense blessing.

I would suggest that if plural marriage were only for creating children and enlarging the population of Saints as some have suggested, there would have been no need for Sealing and marriages for time only would have sufficed.

Just as Heavenly Father loves us in ways we are unable to fully comprehend, we will love one another in similar ways. After all, our purpose is to become like Him whose we are and who was sinless and the very image of the Father.

[sarah331]

Hm to me the reason it affects women differently, in the hypothetical, is because we have more historical/institutional references for it. We've seen what polygamy or polyamory or etc can do to women -- think the FLDS perversion of it, concubines in history (middle east, Asia), etc. It's far more personal if you have a precedent for what can happen. There aren't as many cases of polygamy/etc for 1 woman and multiple men.

Plus, polygamy was strictly 1 man - many women, right? That's a huge gender/sexual inequality right there. IMHO it'd be a little easier to accept if it was 1 partner - many partners.

Of course God wouldn't intend for ^ that to happen, polygamy in that sense would be different, but it is put into humankind's fallible hands after all.

[estradling75]

If polygamy is like the Law of Moses, do you think that it has been fulfilled, and will not be revived in the future?

That was not the direction I was intending to take it...

But to answer your question... I have no idea, but I think it is distracting from the real issue. To gain exaltation (Or a gain a star in the Crown I think is the nearest mainstream Christan idea but I am not sure) one must be obedient. When polygamy was commanded the prophets clearly taught that it was a requirement for exaltation. Now we are commanded to not practice polygamy. The prophets are equally clear to us now that anyone that tries is sinning and needs to repent. The underlying principle for exaltation is obedience now and always.

Thus distracting people with the idea that polygamy is or is not going to be happening in the Celestial Kingdom is putting the cart before the horse and causing unnecessary struggles for people still working on learning how to obey the Lord in all things(all of us). If polygamy is practiced in the celestial Kingdom, it will only be done by those who have been proven in all things and are capable of doing it without all the problems that face us in trying to do so in this mortal world. And if it is not practiced it will also only be dealt with by that same group of people.

My Law of Moses comparison was directed to those that have a problem with the idea that God could command something and then reverse that command later. For those that feel that way they have to face the idea of If the Law of Moses was commanded by God and if God can't give changed orders then either... They need to be offering up sacrifices as the Law demands or the Law was never of God which then kicks out the entire Old Testament as scripture. None of those is really a good option.

[prisonchaplain]

To obey is better than sacrifice . . .