What would you do if polygamy were reinstituted??

[The Folk Prophet]

Snoozer, I'm not going to argue with you about plural marriage. I'm well aware of your strong sentiments concerning it. But your agenda driven selectivity in using Journal of Discourses quotes shows pretty quickly the pick-and-choose approach to pushing your ideas across. As we well know, the Journal of Discourses does not define doctrine, and there are contractions, and problematic statements that we do not understand throughout. We could go back and forth all day quoting Brigham Young to "prove" our points. I'm not interested. You're free to your view.

[applepansy]

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?

I would fast and pray a lot.  

 

I think its important to remember that those who first practiced polygamy did so after being called do to so.  I think that's how it would happen if it was reinstated.

[classylady]

 That is what, unfortunately, the world has misconceived about the practice of polygamy, that it somehow was based in romantic relationships and not a calling from God under inspired direction.

 

 

My family has copies of the love letters my great grandfather wrote to his second wife (my great grandmother).  Their marriage was most definitely based on a romantic relationship.  One cannot say that polygamous marriages were not based on romance. Did not my great grandmother deserve romance and love in her marriage, even though she was the second wife?  Of course she did. In an earlier post I quoted her testimony about polygamy. Of course, her husband still needed to be "called" to practice polygamy. But, his second wife was not chosen for him. He met her, wooed and courted her, and then married her. She believed in the practice of polygamy. She was a beautiful woman, and she could have easily found another man where she could have been a first wife. This was a marriage that was based on romantic feelings one for another.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Snoozer, I'm not going to argue with you about plural marriage. I'm well aware of your strong sentiments concerning it. But your agenda driven selectivity in using Journal of Discourses quotes shows pretty quickly the pick-and-choose approach to pushing your ideas across. As we well know, the Journal of Discourses does not define doctrine, and there are contractions, and problematic statements that we do not understand throughout. We could go back and forth all day quoting Brigham Young to "prove" our points. I'm not interested. You're free to your view.

I appreciate what you are saying here. But this is a forum in which we are given the opportunity to express our beliefs and to discuss why we believe that way.  To say I'm not interested in that makes me wonder why you participate in the discussion in the first place.  If all you want is established doctrine about the church and no further discussion then just go to LDS.org and read on your own. You are free to your view and I am free to my view, now that we got that out of the way we can discuss the issues, if you don't want to, fine, don't read any further.

 

What I get out of this forum is the opportunity to express questions and thoughts that would otherwise remain as personal ponderings.   There have been numerous times that I have expressed a belief and by responses to those statements it has caused me to dig into the issue further and has either changed my view or allowed me to understand the issues better.  I have grown by the process.  The process, requires making quick singled-out, focused statements to express the heart of the matter in a specific way.  Because of the limitations of the forum I am not going to give you my whole understanding of the issue everytime I write something, that would be ridiculous. So, it has to come across as focused statements.  If you think my interpretation of the statement is wrong, fine, say so.  But to say that one cannot pick specific statements without including in a greater picture presentation, I think limits the forum process, it can't be done. I don't have enough time or effort that I would want to devote to such a process. I think it is wrong to dismiss an idea just because it is presented as a single idea, especially when we have already established the context.  

 

I think it is important, when talking about polygamy, to understand the circumstances in which it was used which may be different from today.  If one thinks polygamy is a law like paying tithing or something of that sort then one would also dismiss the discussion about the circumstances.  But if one views polygamy like the commandment to only gather so much manna at a time unless it is the day before the Sabath, then a discussion of the circumstances is valid.  What you have established is your strong belief that polygamy is an eternal, unchangeable, universal law irregardless of circumstances, at least that is what you are seemingly saying by not wanting to listen to any discussion of why it might be a commandment that was given for a specific time and place.  If one believes the commandment was given for a specific time and place, under specific circumstances that are no longer at play now then that becomes a valid part of the discussion of the opening post which was about how one would react to it being reinstituted today.

[The Folk Prophet]

I appreciate what you are saying here. But this is a forum in which we are given the opportunity to express our beliefs and to discuss why we believe that way.  To say I'm not interested in that makes me wonder why you participate in the discussion in the first place.  If all you want is established doctrine about the church and no further discussion then just go to LDS.org and read on your own. You are free to your view and I am free to my view, now that we got that out of the way we can discuss the issues, if you don't want to, fine, don't read any further.

 

What I am not interested in is quote mining from the Journal of Discourses. And, specifically, arguing with you about the need for plural marriage -- primarily because unlike Traveler, I don't enjoy beating a horse to death and we've been through this many times. I find your views of polygamy highly biased by your distaste for it. You are free to that bias, but I see your arguments as flawed by that bias and don't see much use in the "nuh uh", "uh huh" sort of back and forth that is likely to come of it. Moreover, I find your points of view contradictory to decades of teachings concerning polygamy (with the exception of the aforementioned quote mining). It was very clearly taught that plural marriage was the order of heaven by many prophets and apostles. They taught that monogamy was flawed. They taught that polygamy was superior. You disregard those things because it does not favor your position. I could quote them to further debate. You would refute them with some other quote, and back and forth and so on? Seems like a waste of time to me.

 

The bottom line is, we have no idea on most of these things. There is specific evidence of the way it worked though, and a Journal of Discourse quote or two isn't going to change that. You can disagree all you want, but the historical record makes it fairly clear that wives did not choose their husband's other wives. The husbands found their own - consistently. Wives getting revelation for their husbands may have happened. It was certainly not "the rule".

[Seminarysnoozer]

Let me be a little more clear as to my sentiments about polygamy as some claim they know my sentiments well, I don't want to give a false presentation of my real sentiments.

 

I believe that there was a time when plural marriage was part of the law of God for His people and that all those who obeyed the law will receive blessings accordingly.  Just as I feel with all laws of God, including things like animal sacrifice and cirumcision etc., all those who willingly obeyed those laws as they were given for those people at those times will be blessed for their obedience as they should be.

 

I also believe that their are laws given for specific times and circumstances and just because a law was given for a specific time does not necesarily mean that it is an eternal practice or that we should aspire to live such a law if we don't currently live it now any more than one would now aspire to living the law of animal sacrifice. I believe to hope for the law that once was or to consider it a "better way" just because it was once done should not be the case for every law given in the past.  One should consider the circumstances and the reasons, many of which we will not fully understand in this life.  Otherwise we have no basis to say that it is something that is continued or a higher law for which we hope to have or live by in the future.  There are some times where that might be the case such as the united order.  I do not look at polygamy as I do the united order. And some might interpret that as being wrong. WIth that, I think it is wrong to look at polygamy as a future higher law that we simply were not able to abide but in the future will be called to do so unless that is revealed to be the case.

 

President Hinckley; "More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage."

 

It is possible that things which were laws of God change.  They may be permanently stopped or a lesser practice is started until we are capable of practiciing the higher law such as with the United Order.  J. Reuben Clark; "In light of the fact that we are not now required to live the law of consecration and the further fact that we have the welfare program which, as President Clark said, if put “thoroughly into operation … we shall not be … far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order,” I suppose the best way to live the principles of the law of consecration is to abide by the principles and practices of the welfare program."  In that light we can safely hope for the time that we can fully live that law.  But that approach, I don't think, is the way the church views pleural marriage, we don't see monogomous marriage as a lesser form of a higher practice. (I could be wrong, it has happened before).

 

My strong feelings are mostly directed towards the idea that because it was once a law it must be a better way of doing things and therefore must be what happens in the world to come.  To feel that way about every law of God across the board without consideration of the details is wrong.

[Seminarysnoozer]

What I am not interested in is quote mining from the Journal of Discourses. And, specifically, arguing with you about the need for plural marriage -- primarily because unlike Traveler, I don't enjoy beating a horse to death and we've been through this many times. I find your views of polygamy highly biased by your distaste for it. You are free to that bias, but I see your arguments as flawed by that bias and don't see much use in the "nuh uh", "uh huh" sort of back and forth that is likely to come of it. Moreover, I find your points of view contradictory to decades of teachings concerning polygamy (with the exception of the aforementioned quote mining). It was very clearly taught that plural marriage was the order of heaven by many prophets and apostles. They taught that monogamy was flawed. They taught that polygamy was superior. You disregard those things because it does not favor your position. I could quote them to further debate. You would refute them with some other quote, and back and forth and so on? Seems like a waste of time to me.

 

The bottom line is, we have no idea on most of these things. There is specific evidence of the way it worked though, and a Journal of Discourse quote or two isn't going to change that. You can disagree all you want, but the historical record makes it fairly clear that wives did not choose their husband's other wives. The husbands found their own - consistently. Wives getting revelation for their husbands may have happened. It was certainly not "the rule".

Ok, thanks.  I understand you now.  As I thought, your view is that pleural marriage is supperior to monogomy. 

 

You are right, as to that issue we probably would go back and forth.  It was supperior when the law was given but clearly now is not supperior as one would be excommunicated from the church if one practiced polygamy.  So, again, to say it with such a blanket statement without focus on the circumstances is wrong.  And that is all that I am saying.  It cannot be stated with no regard to the circumstances as you wish it to be.  It is not always superior, that is a false belief.  I am not arguing the idea that at that time it was the superior thing to do for those called to do it.  But for now I will side with President Hinckley; "More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God."  Clearly making it not superior to monogomous marriage, now.

 

(By the way, I never said that the wife chooses the other wife - If I did, I didn't intend to and don't believe that anyways).

[The Folk Prophet]

Ok, thanks.  I understand you now.  As I thought, your view is that pleural marriage is supperior to monogomy. 

 

I have no opinion on that.

 

(By the way, I never said that the wife chooses the other wife - If I did, I didn't intend to and don't believe that anyways).

 

I inferred it from the fact that I posted that it didn't work that way and your first sentence in response was "I disagree." *shrug* Maybe I misunderstood.

[Palerider]

You would have to stop and think about this more than one wife thing.....seriously ....more than one wife means more than one Mother in Law......think about it.....

[pam]

You would have to stop and think about this more than one wife thing.....seriously ....more than one wife means more than one Mother in Law......think about it.....

 

And that more than one mother in law would have you as a son in law.  :)

[Palerider]

No.....that's the reason why I wouldn't do it......one mother in law is enough. Lol

[pam]

I don't see much happening, just because it is hypothetically reinstated doesn't mean that marriage can happen on a legal level. And just because it is reinstated does not mean it is required that additional brides be taken either.

But let's say it was legal and that it was reinstated in the church. What would be your response then?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

But let's say it was legal and that it was reinstated in the church. What would be your response then?

 

The main thing that comes to my mind is that we must have different houses for each wife.  I don't want "wife wars" over chores.  That sounds light-hearted, but actually, I'm serious.

[The Folk Prophet]

The main thing that comes to my mind is that we must have different houses for each wife.  I don't want "wife wars" over chores.  That sounds light-hearted, but actually, I'm serious.

 

This was also never a rule in ye olden days. Many, many polygamous families shared households.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This sounds like a silly question but I honestly do not understand this; What is the relationship between the wives in a plural marriage?   Are they sealed to each other?

I have heard the term "sister wives" but I don't know if there really is some special relationship between the wives that would be part of an "eternal family" type relationship.  We do not believe in same sex marriage, so this could not be a marriage-associated relationship.  They are not actually sisters with each other - so the relationship would not be like sealing a children to the parents type relationship.  What relationship if any really exists between the "sister wives" from an eternal perspective.  I don't think there is anything 'sealed' between them.  I could be wrong.  I think the term "sister wives" is just a cute way to describe the relationship they have with each other but I am not aware of any legal or church designated association. 

 

The programs on TV about polygmay like "Sister Wives", as the name suggests, seems to focus on that particular relationship - between the wives, even though, as far as I can tell, that relationship was never a focus or purpose of plural marriage in the first place.  It has become a secondary, cute but bizarre, 'purpose' for polygamy. I don't think there was ever any intended sharing of the intimacies of one marriage with another between the wives so they really shouldn't be having any relationship one with the other any more than a "Sister" in the church would have with another "Sister".  I realize the "Sister wives" show is nothing really like the polygamy families in the early church but it still raises the question of whether that was a relationship that was pursued and thought to continue into the next life or not, and if it is what is that relationship called - outside the colloquial name?

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, SS, if you listen to the temple sealing carefully, it doesn't set up a direct sealing between siblings either. Their formal "link" is merely that they are sealed to, and therefore happen to claim eternal blessings via the same individual.

[The Folk Prophet]

The wives are sealed only to their husbands in the plural marriage relationship, not to each other.

[classylady]

In my family history, the children usually called the other wife/wives), Aunt ___.  There were times when some of the wives would have to live together in the same house, but usually, if finances permitted, they would have their separate household. In my reading, even if the wives lived separately, they would often help one another. When my third great grandmother became seriously ill, (she was a third wife), one of the other wives took and cared for my 3rd great grandmother's baby for several months. Story goes she had a hard time giving the baby back.

 

Either my grandfather or grandmother, can't remember which, told me that there were separate chores the families had to do. One wife was responsible for the bread making, another would be responsible for the house cleaning, etc. 

[The Folk Prophet]

In my family history, the children usually called the other wife/wives), Aunt ___.  There were times when some of the wives would have to live together in the same house, but usually, if finances permitted, they would have their separate household. In my reading, even if the wives lived separately, they would often help one another. When my third great grandmother became seriously ill, (she was a third wife), one of the other wives took and cared for my 3rd great grandmother's baby for several months. Story goes she had a hard time giving the baby back.

 

Either my grandfather or grandmother, can't remember which, told me that there were separate chores the families had to do. One wife was responsible for the bread making, another would be responsible for the house cleaning, etc. 

 

This is pretty similar to what I know of my family history as well, and what I know of other's family histories. 

[omegaseamaster75]

Why even tell your wife, Emma didn't know about half of Josephs wives, easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

This was also never a rule in ye olden days. Many, many polygamous families shared households.

 

To me that isn't the point.  Pam asked what our response would be.  That is MY response.  Some poly-families did have separate homes.  

[The Folk Prophet]

To me that isn't the point.  Pam asked what our response would be.  That is MY response.  Some poly-families did have separate homes.  

 

Fair enough. But you did say:

 

The main thing that comes to my mind is that we must have different houses for each wife.

[mdfxdb]

Why even tell your wife, Emma didn't know about half of Josephs wives, easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

Lol...funny.  I would probably roll just like Joseph did.  Young and often... J/K

[pam]

The main thing that comes to my mind is that we must have different houses for each wife.  I don't want "wife wars" over chores.  That sounds light-hearted, but actually, I'm serious.

I can totally get this.  The ideal thing would be if each enjoyed doing different things and it covered it all.  But I don't know many women who really enjoy cleaning bathrooms.

 

I think that I would want that rule too. That we must have our own house.  :)

[The Folk Prophet]

I can totally get this.  The ideal thing would be if each enjoyed doing different things and it covered it all.  But I don't know many women who really enjoy cleaning bathrooms.

 

Or not seeing their husband for three days while he's off gallivanting with the newer, younger, hotter wives.  (I don't know why a ninja. I've just been wanting to use that emoticon for a while now.)