What would you do if polygamy were reinstituted??

[classylady]

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.)

 

My great grandma (a 2nd wife) told my mother that it was rather nice not having her husband around all the time. She enjoyed her breaks.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Fair enough. But you did say:

 

LOL, yes, because it was MY rule.  I've seen what happens when strong women live together...it's usually not pretty.

[Just_A_Guy]

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

 

I don't know if the above are based in sincere ignorance, or if they're supposed to be back-handed slams at Joseph Smith's integrity.  I'll assume the former.

 

D&C 132:61 is clear that you can only enter into plural marriage with the consent of your existing wife.  Smith got a pass because he held the keys to the sealing power, and there's a specific exception to that aforementioned principle (also called the "Law of Sarah") for the man who holds the keys to the sealing power in D&C 132: 64.  Which makes sense, when you think about it--the person who holds the keys to the sealing power cannot really teach a principle he is not willing (or able, due to opposition from his first wife) to live himself.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.

Gospel Principles chapter 36 says; "Families can be together forever. To enjoy this blessing we must be married in the temple. When people are married outside the temple, the marriage ends when one of the partners dies. When we are married in the temple by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we are married for time and eternity. If we keep our covenants with the Lord, our families will be united eternally as husband, wife, and children. Death cannot separate us."

 

We are taught that families can be together forever. The basic unit is husband, wife and children.  So in a plural marriage situation, if that really does exist outside mortal realms, are there multiple units using the same husband or are thy considered one family as in "families can be together forever", "united eternally as husband, wife and children"?   If they are multiple units then there is no relationship between wives and yet there is a relationship between the children of one unit that is part of the family unit "together forever".  But even the children from one unit will not be "together forever" with children of another unit. 

 

One might say, well everyone who makes it into the Celestial Kingdom is sealed in some way to another. I accept that but most would say that there is a difference in being part of the Celestial family vs the bonds formed via eternal marriage.  I am simply asking about the bonds that exist as part of the "families can be together forever" bond which, as gospel principles explains falls under the bonds based in eternal marriage.

[Just_A_Guy]

Gospel Principles chapter 36 says; "Families can be together forever. To enjoy this blessing we must be married in the temple. When people are married outside the temple, the marriage ends when one of the partners dies. When we are married in the temple by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, we are married for time and eternity. If we keep our covenants with the Lord, our families will be united eternally as husband, wife, and children. Death cannot separate us."

 

Not to get all Clintonesque, but . . . Define "family", and define "together".

 

I mean, I'm sealed to my parents.  We're an an "eternal family".  But I live seven hundred miles away from them, and see them (if I'm lucky) six times per year.  How can we be together forever, if we aren't even together in the here-and-now?

 

Heck, I'm sealed to my wife.  We're supposed to be "together forever".  But it's 4:30, and I'm at work in Salt Lake valley, and she's at home in Utah valley.  How can we be "together forever" if we're not even together in this particular moment?

 

I know how our correlated materials have tried to simplify the matter and broaden its appeal to a 20th- and 21st-century western audience; but the parent/child sealing itself doesn't convey any ideas or promises of eternal and perpetual physical proximity.  Rather, it conveys the idea of the child's being adopted into a royal lineage, which adoption makes the child the legal heir of certain blessings.  (We've romanticized the idea of "adoption" over the last century; but legally at common law--the only reason you would bother with adopting a child was for inheritance reasons.)

 

 

We are taught that families can be together forever. The basic unit is husband, wife and children.  So in a plural marriage situation, if that really does exist outside mortal realms, are there multiple units using the same husband or are thy considered one family as in "families can be together forever", "united eternally as husband, wife and children"?   If they are multiple units then there is no relationship between wives and yet there is a relationship between the children of one unit that is part of the family unit "together forever".  But even the children from one unit will not be "together forever" with children of another unit. 

 

One might say, well everyone who makes it into the Celestial Kingdom is sealed in some way to another. I accept that but most would say that there is a difference in being part of the Celestial family vs the bonds formed via eternal marriage.  I am simply asking about the bonds that exist as part of the "families can be together forever" bond which, as gospel principles explains falls under the bonds based in eternal marriage.

 

Sure.  Given that I think "together forever" is really such a nebulous thing, all I can really do is default back to the plan language of the rituals themselves.  A man is sealed to his wife, and the two of them are bound by a covenant relationship.  A child is sealed to his or her parents, and the parents are bound to that child by a covenant relationship.  But a man's two wives are not sealed to each other, and siblings are not sealed to each other.  They are bound by ties of love, respect, gratitude, pride, and the like; and surely those bonds will increase and strengthen as each party takes advantage of the inheritance that he/she has legally received by virtue of his/her sealing and place in the patriarchal order.  But in my view, the sealing isn't about "togetherness" of parents and children: it's about making sure there's a legal path to attaining one's birthright.

[Palerider]

LOL, yes, because it was MY rule.  I've seen what happens when strong women live together...it's usually not pretty.

Throw a Mother in law or two into the fray and you have a big big mess........Lol

[omegaseamaster75]

Throw a Mother in law or two into the fray and you have a big big mess........Lol

I would only marry women who's mothers were either dead or lived in another country....one MIL is enough for me

[Palerider]

I would only marry women who's mothers were either dead or lived in another country....one MIL is enough for me

Amen to that......Lol

[Guest]

My husband's MIL is wonderful.

[Palerider]

My husband's MIL is wonderful.

Truthfully ....my Mother in Law is awesome....we have always joked around and teased each other and still do to this day...I always told her mother in laws were the reason polygamy stopped. That's why I make the remarks that I do.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Not to get all Clintonesque, but . . . Define "family", and define "together".

 

I mean, I'm sealed to my parents.  We're an an "eternal family".  But I live seven hundred miles away from them, and see them (if I'm lucky) six times per year.  How can we be together forever, if we aren't even together in the here-and-now?

 

Heck, I'm sealed to my wife.  We're supposed to be "together forever".  But it's 4:30, and I'm at work in Salt Lake valley, and she's at home in Utah valley.  How can we be "together forever" if we're not even together in this particular moment?

 

I know how our correlated materials have tried to simplify the matter and broaden its appeal to a 20th- and 21st-century western audience; but the parent/child sealing itself doesn't convey any ideas or promises of eternal and perpetual physical proximity.  Rather, it conveys the idea of the child's being adopted into a royal lineage, which adoption makes the child the legal heir of certain blessings.  (We've romanticized the idea of "adoption" over the last century; but legally at common law--the only reason you would bother with adopting a child was for inheritance reasons.)

 

 

Sure.  Given that I think "together forever" is really such a nebulous thing, all I can really do is default back to the plan language of the rituals themselves.  A man is sealed to his wife, and the two of them are bound by a covenant relationship.  A child is sealed to his or her parents, and the parents are bound to that child by a covenant relationship.  But a man's two wives are not sealed to each other, and siblings are not sealed to each other.  They are bound by ties of love, respect, gratitude, pride, and the like; and surely those bonds will increase and strengthen as each party takes advantage of the inheritance that he/she has legally received by virtue of his/her sealing and place in the patriarchal order.  But in my view, the sealing isn't about "togetherness" of parents and children: it's about making sure there's a legal path to attaining one's birthright.

I like your answer, it, for the most part, makes sense to me.  For those same reasons, to me, it seems there is not much need for plural marriage to be continued in the next life.  If the second or third wife (using your words but putting it into this context) "legally received by virture of (her) sealing and place in the patriarchal order" then there is no requriement for "togetherness" after if it is just about making sure there is a legal path to attaining one's blessings associated with the everlasting covenant. I also view that possibility in light of the idea that we perform vicarious covenents all the time and even a Savior who performs acts in our behalf that we could not do for ourselves.  In other words, the stand-in mortal husband allows the second and third wives to obtain the blessings and benefit from those blessings while here in mortality and be allowed to continue with them in the next life when the stand-in husband is replaced with an eternal partner in a place where the numbers of men allow for that correction.   And yes, there may be contiued relationships that go on beyond mortality, just like a brother loves his sister and that will continue in the next life for some.

 

Why is it that we say the "family" is the eternal unit and not "marriage" as the eternal unit? There must be some reason behind that.

[j. allen herndon]

interestingly I heard a discussion years ago among older men who saaw that a growth ion the kingdom often came simply through the birth of children in the church.  It seemed to follow then, that the ancient command to be fruitful and multiply might still be relevent today, not to fulfil mens lust, and the giving in marriage of mere girls, I mean children, but a man of the church producing fifty or even a hundred followers in his own household, and thus the church growing like a plant grows and produces much fruit.  Something to think about, although womwn may not see the grace in being used as breeding stock apart from a meaninful love relationship with their best friend and husband.  Maybe its a macho religion for the convenience of a few good men????