What would you do if polygamy were reinstituted??

[Dorian]

I know that the LDS Church no longer practices plural marriage but that at times God has required it from His people. So hypothetically, if tomorrow the prophet received a revelation that God wanted the saints to practice the principle of plural marriage again (and any legal obstacles were cleared away) how would you respond?

[Guest]

Pray really hard.

[slamjet]

First off, the legal obsticals are just about cleared away with the quazi-legalization of same sex marriages (SCOTUS keeps whimping out).  Second, I couldn't even keep one marriage together so I know I'm safe.

[Backroads]

Probably just go with the flow.  I can't think of anything universally wrong with polygamy, and even personally I have no problem with it.

[Just_A_Guy]

I have no problem if the Church, in general, resumes the practice of polygamy; though I wouldn't live it myself unless specifically instructed to do so--and honestly, quite possibly not even then.  I'd like to think I'd have the faith to do whatever was asked of me, but . . . I have some past issues that would make me seriously doubt my ability to pick a polygamous spouse for the right reasons or in such a way as to avoid gravely traumatizing Just_A_Girl.

[Palerider]

It would be a hard sell to Mrs Palerider

[The Folk Prophet]

In spite of the incredible trauma of it, I would obey, though I expect I would fail miserably. The fact that I was even able to get one wife is a miracle beyond description.

[FunkyTown]

As it was practiced only by a very few, I would guess I would not be affected. Huzzah.

[Guest]

I trust my husband.  Completely.  I'm fairly certain if he receives the revelation and commandment to take on Second Wife, I'll receive the same revelation.  If he feels he needs to take on Second Wife to obey God's commandments I'd be like... cool!  She gets to do the laundry.

[omegaseamaster75]

I would do it. A difficult law to be sure, I would allow my wife veto power I guess over who I married.

[Jennarator]

I, too, would have to pray really hard...I would, however, expect to recive a confirmation.  Then it would be difficult.  I might pray even harder than my husband was not selected to be part of that.  Haha! 

[mdfxdb]

I would do it, but my wife would not have veto power.....

[Seminarysnoozer]

I know that the LDS Church no longer practices plural marriage but that at times God has required it from His people. So hypothetically, if tomorrow the prophet received a revelation that God wanted the saints to practice the principle of plural marriage again (and any legal obstacles were cleared away) how would you respond?

If there was no obvious reason for it, like some virus that kills half the men or a war that results in changing the ratio of men to women, I would have to seek some inspired understanding of it to accept it.  I really doubt it would return just because legal blocks are out of the way.  I have no testimony or knowledge of polygamy being something that is practiced and lived outside of the mortal time as I believe it was used for certain mortal circumstances and for Gods purposes on Earth and not intended as an eternal condition.  Laws can change but principles don't.  I think polygamy was a law for a certain time and the blessings associated with obeying the law will pertain to those that obey the laws of their time but it is not an eternal principle (to my knowledge).

 

There is no way to comprehend such a need in the eternities and so it could only be accepted by Faith as it really has no logical reason to be used after this life, even when people try to find some logical purpose in the practice for after this life - I have never seen one that makes sense to me and I don't expect to.  Unless it is revealed knowledge by our current leaders that, for certain, God lives in polygamous relationships, that should never be someones underlying reason to accept polygamy.  The only reason, that I could see, to accept polygamy is by faith.  The reason I say it this way is because I have had contact with people who currently practice polygamy and their argument always goes back to their belief that God lives that way.  In my thinking, that should not be the only reason for it in mortality (even though I think that is a false belief).

[The Folk Prophet]

I have an interesting perspective on the return of plural marriage in that, personally, I do not want to have to live it. I mean, being a guy, it's surely less painful of an idea than for a girl, but I'm not interested in a second (or third or fourth or holy crap...) wife. And I really hate the idea of the difficulty and trauma it would bring to my wife. However, from a certain perspective it's return would mean a clear line in the sand. I'm not a big fan of jack-mormonism. Get on the train or get off. Something like the return of polygamy would force people to choose their side. I like that, in theory.

[Guest]

Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean multiple sexual partners.

 

Just thought I'd throw it out there.

[The Folk Prophet]

Polygamy doesn't necessarily mean multiple sexual partners.

 

Just thought I'd throw it out there.

 

...riiiiigt..... 

[Just_A_Guy]

I would do it, but my wife would not have veto power.....

I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, scripturally speaking.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't think that's how it's supposed to work, scripturally speaking.

 

I dunno. It could be read that way. From a certain perspective it sort of says she has to give permission, but if she doesn't she's a sinner and the approval is no longer required.     

[Just_A_Guy]

I dunno. It could be read that way. From a certain perspective it sort of says she has to give permission, but if she doesn't she's a sinner and the approval is no longer required.

That provision only applies if the husband holds the keys to the sealing power--i.e., President of the Church (and arguably other 1st Pres/Q12 members) (D&C 132:64). The rest of us remain subject to the Law of Sarah as alluded to in v. 61 (consent of first wife as condition precedent to taking another wife).

[The Folk Prophet]

That provision only applies if the husband holds the keys to the sealing power--i.e., President of the Church (and arguably other 1st Pres/Q12 members) (D&C 132:61). The rest of us remain subject to the Law of Sarah as alluded to in v. 61 (consent of first wife as condition precedent to taking another wife).

 

Yeah..I've heard it read that way. It's connecting the previous 2 verses (59-60) to the law of Sarah portion. I'm just not entirely sure they're connected. D&C 132 jumps around, subject-wise, all over the place. I'm not sure there is a compelling reason to attach the two ideas.

 

It also seems odd to me. If two points combine -- a man marry a selfish woman and, polygamy is an eternal law that brings greater blessings when obeyed -- then it seems unfair to cheat said righteous man out of said blessings because of said selfish wife. On the other hand...it seems as fair as anything else in life........

 

*shrug* I suppose if they re-instigate it that certain standards will also be set that define proper polygamy practice.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I dunno. It could be read that way. From a certain perspective it sort of says she has to give permission, but if she doesn't she's a sinner and the approval is no longer required.     

The way I understand it, the second wife has to be "given" by inspiration so who your wife would be giving permission to is not you but God.  In other words, the additional wives beyond the first are not something a man would go out and date and go on the hunt for, as it is portrayed in certain cable TV shows recently.  It is more like a calling and like most callings (except things like going on a mission) we don't go asking for them, they are given under inspiration.  So, if the wife doesn't approve it is like turning down a calling.

[Guest]

Yeah..I've heard it read that way. It's connecting the previous 2 verses (59-60) to the law of Sarah portion. I'm just not entirely sure they're connected. D&C 132 jumps around, subject-wise, all over the place. I'm not sure there is a compelling reason to attach the two ideas.

 

It also seems odd to me. If two points combine -- a man marry a selfish woman and, polygamy is an eternal law that brings greater blessings when obeyed -- then it seems unfair to cheat said righteous man out of said blessings because of said selfish wife. On the other hand...it seems as fair as anything else in life........

 

*shrug* I suppose if they re-instigate it that certain standards will also be set that define proper polygamy practice.

 

I would think that if this practice was re-instated, both husband and wife will receive confirmation in their own prayers.  I think the sin is on the head of whoever received the commandment and either didn't seek confirmation and disobeyed such commandment or received confirmation and disobeyed such commandment... if one does not receive confirmation at all, I think the spouse has justification not to allow it and therefore, the other spouse gets to hold back until such confirmation is received.  If he insists on going through with it without the spouse's support, then the sin be on his head.

 

I have to admit, I'm not very well versed with polygamy in scriptures.

[The Folk Prophet]

I would think that if this practice was re-instated, both husband and wife will receive confirmation in their own prayers.  I think the sin is on the head of whoever received the commandment and either didn't seek confirmation and disobeyed such commandment or received confirmation and disobeyed such commandment... if one does not receive confirmation at all, I think the spouse has justification not to allow it and therefore, the other spouse gets to hold back until such confirmation is received.

 

You're presuming a straight-up lack of desire on both sides. What if the husband, as would be the case eventually once a generation passed or so and the cultural shock of it was settled a bit, actually wanted to take a second wife?

[Just_A_Guy]

*shrug* I suppose if they re-instigate it that certain standards will also be set that define proper polygamy practice.

Indeed. We never really got around to codifying Church expectations re polygamy on the first go-around. I don't relish the re-institution of polygamy; but from an academic standpoint it would be absolutely fascinating to see what procedures and guidelines developed.

Tangentially: if the notion that a man didn't really need his first wife's consent does NOT come from v. 64, where does it come from? Verse 61 seems clear in establishing the general rule that consent is required. If the notion really does come solely from v. 64, I don't see how one can embrace it without also embracing the qualifier within that verse, stating that it applies where the husband holds the keys to the sealing power.

[The Folk Prophet]

Indeed. We never really got around to codifying Church expectations re polygamy on the first go-around. I don't relish the re-institution of polygamy; but from an academic standpoint it would be absolutely fascinating to see what procedures and guidelines developed.

Tangentially: if the notion that a man didn't really need his first wife's consent does NOT come from v. 64, where does it come from? Verse 61 seems clear in establishing the general rule that consent is required. If the notion really does come solely from v. 64, I don't see how one can embrace it without also embracing the qualifier within that verse, stating that it applies where the husband holds the keys to the sealing power.

 

I concede. It does refer to the key holding again in vs. 64. I missed that in my previous point.