Joseph Smith, multiple wives

[The Folk Prophet]

So moving back to the human practice of polygamy and not the animalistic breeding habits of domesticated cattle...

 

I found this excerpt (non LDS) interesting:

 

 

Food for thought.

 

I'm not sure I buy the whole -- if it's against the law it's a sin -- thing. But an interesting read.

[The Folk Prophet]

Now can we actually talk about the OP?

 

Um...I thought....we...were..... ??

[The Folk Prophet]

Yeah, well, I've never been partial to that theory, and I have never personally found lots of reason to believe it's true.

 

I tend to think it is true, and tend to believe it is the only really viable reason for the existence of polygamy in the eternities (admitting that my understanding of the eternities is ridiculously limited). Where it becomes problematic is when the universal idea is applied specifically. Women are more righteous than men (if true) does note equate to - because someone is a woman they are more righteous than men, or that being a man means we need special help that women do not need (as the "that's why men have the priesthood" theory therefrom supposes).

Edited January 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[PolarVortex]

As a closing comment to this subthread about cows...

 

The argument I heard was that the ratio of men to women in the early church was 1:2 or 1:3.  To prevent the creation of large numbers of fertile but childless single women, men were allowed to practice polygyny for a while.  The fertility rates of women in polygamous versus monogamous unions was never an issue that I heard about.   However, this theory does not explain why polyandry also emerged.

 

Honestly, when I read the comments above I thought I had accidentally stumbled onto the website of The Onion.  

 

CatholicLady, see what we started?   

Edited January 29, 2015 by PolarVortex

[The Folk Prophet]

However, this theory does not explain why polyandry also emerged.

 

I think it a bit misleading to say polyandry "emerged". A few, unexplained, isolated instances that we don't know the reason behind is hardly emerging. Moreover, there is NO doctrine of polyandry eternally, scripturally, or otherwise. The reality of what might be viewed as polyandry from a mortal/legalistic perspective does not apply to the eternities. And there is no evidence, ever, of any woman living as husband and wife with two men concurrently. None. All we have is a few scattered records of sealings between Joseph Smith and women that we know were married to other men. Hardly conclusive evidence of polyandry emerging.

 

My intent here, in case it's misunderstood, is not to be contentious, but rather, to inform and clarify something that seems to be generally misunderstood.

Edited January 29, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

The argument I heard was that the ratio of men to women in the early church was 1:2 or 1:3.

 

I also have heard this, but I disbelieve it. I have read articles that supposedly explode this as a myth, though I have no references off-hand and I'm too lazy to Google it at the moment.

 

However, this theory does not explain why polyandry also emerged.

 

Like TFP, I think the whole "polyandry" idea is a myth. "Polyandry" existed only in the sense that women were married for time to one man while being sealed for eternity to another. In no realistic, functional sense is that an example of a woman having two husbands with whom she lives.

[PolarVortex]

 

"Polyandry" existed only in the sense that women were married for time to one man while being sealed for eternity to another. In no realistic, functional sense is that an example of a woman having two husbands with whom she lives.

 

 

I'm just repeating what I read at FairMormon: "Nothing in plural marriage mystifies—or troubles—members of the Church more than Joseph's polyandrous sealings. Marriage to multiple wives may seem strange, but at least it intrudes on our historical awareness, while many remain unaware of polyandry's existence in LDS history."

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Polyandry

 

Whatever... in my solar system of things to worry about, this topic is way past Pluto.

[Crypto]

Complete speculation on my part but...
It would be important for children to be born into a supportive and righteous family. Polygamy might be able to accomplish that. Not about the number of seed but about a righteous seed. Also it would tie the community together closer because of close familial relations. Statistically females survive to reproductive age more often than men, even if such an explanation isn't suitable to completely explain it away, there is some validity.

Women don't have to be more righteous for the numbers game to work, simply more women than men on total.
(in the preexistence)

Edited January 29, 2015 by Crypto

[SpiritDragon]

I'm not sure I buy the whole -- if it's against the law it's a sin -- thing. But an interesting read.

 

Do you not buy it in the greater Christian sense or coming from a Mormon view-point? I believe both perspectives agree on upholding the law. This seems to me why it so important to be engaged in the political process and to uphold good laws while also working to oppose bad laws. I also think this is largely why corrupt leaders will be accountable for corruptions imposed and promoted under their rule.

 

However, I agree with you if your point is that the laws of the land do not supersede the laws of God, such as Daniel, Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego not conforming to laws preventing them from having a proper relationship with God. On a larger scale though, I think God is very much in favour of his children conforming to the laws of the land such that they aren't considered enemies of the state and eradicated. It seems like this was a theme in the recent Church press-release on playing nice with the LGBT. It isn't that the church is agreeing with the LGBT they are right, but realizing (or having revealed) that we need to work together for freedoms if they are to be had.

[askandanswer]

Claire, this comes from the official church website

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

[JimmiGerman]

Hi everyone. :)

How do you explain/reconcile Joseph Smith having multiple wives?

 

Thanks!

 

He wasn't homosexual, to say it in simple words, as many of your false priests are. But I can see what your question is aiming for. You want to descredit the prophet Joseph Smith, don't you? I'm saving myself to explain to you the sense and importance of that holy alliance in former times. A waste of time.

 

By the way, I don't think that you really look so pretty as in your profile picture, and I'm not sure if Joseph Smith would have married you. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[Guest]

Okay... here's your Catholic to LDS gap on Polygamy:

The missing doctrine that is absent from the Catholic teaching is the doctrine of Eternal Marriage/Eternal Families.

The Catholics believe that marriage is an earthly ordinance and ends at death. Familial relationship also end at death. This is based on Matthew 22 and several texts in Paul's letters (one oft these days, I'm going to learn to memorize chapter and verses of biblical principles... But it won't be today).

The LDS believe that marriage - when sealed by proper authority - is eternal. Families, therefore, is an eternal relationship that has important implications in our eternal organization. The important distinction in the interpretation of Matthew 22 is the faith of the Sadducees in the resurrection (eternal state). Matthew pointed out that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, therefore, the marriages they were asking about are marriages performed outside of the faith. Jesus then replied that marriages for those who do not believe in the resurrection end at death.

In LDS and Catholic belief alike, marriages performed by secular ordinance are non-binding. But because of the missing doctrine of eternal marriage, the Catholics believe it's not binding on earth. Whereas, the LDS believe it is binding only until death. The marriage (like marriages performed by the Sadducees) dissolves after death as Christ taught in Matthew 22.

So, how this ties to polygamy...

In both LDS and Catholic teaching, when a wife dies, the husband can marry another. But, because in Catholic belief, the marriage ended at death, the husband is only married to one person. In LDS belief, marriages do not end in death, therefore, when the husband married another wife, he has made two eternally binding covenants. Each covenant is between one man, one woman and God. It is not a covenant between one man, two women, and God.

Polygamy, therefore, is an Eternal doctrine. So that, even if God commands to only have one living spouse in mortality, it does not change the eternal principle of polygamy.

Hope this clarifies things.

[Guest]

Duplicate.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

Triplicate.

Edited January 29, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

He wasn't gay, as many of your false priests are.

Jimmy! Be nice!

[JimmiGerman]

(...)

The missing doctrine that is absent from the Catholic teaching is the doctrine of Eternal Marriage/Eternal Families.

 

(...)

Polygamy, therefore, is an Eternal doctrine. So that, even if God commands to only have one living spouse in mortality, it does not change the eternal principle of polygamy.

 

Hope this clarifies things.

 

 

I wish I could have given her this answer and speak the way you can.

Edited January 29, 2015 by JimmiGerman

[The Folk Prophet]

Do you not buy it in the greater Christian sense or coming from a Mormon view-point? I believe both perspectives agree on upholding the law. This seems to me why it so important to be engaged in the political process and to uphold good laws while also working to oppose bad laws. I also think this is largely why corrupt leaders will be accountable for corruptions imposed and promoted under their rule.

 

However, I agree with you if your point is that the laws of the land do not supersede the laws of God, such as Daniel, Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego not conforming to laws preventing them from having a proper relationship with God. On a larger scale though, I think God is very much in favour of his children conforming to the laws of the land such that they aren't considered enemies of the state and eradicated. It seems like this was a theme in the recent Church press-release on playing nice with the LGBT. It isn't that the church is agreeing with the LGBT they are right, but realizing (or having revealed) that we need to work together for freedoms if they are to be had.

 

Do not buy it in the sense that it's going too far. Of course we believe in obeying the law. And, of course, in general, disregard for the law is sinful. But, as you point out, there are plenty of examples of righteous people defying the law.

[The Folk Prophet]

Women don't have to be more righteous for the numbers game to work, simply more women than men on total.

(in the preexistence)

 

This would be valid, however, statistically it has not been the case in mortality. Meaning, if there were more women in the pre-existence, you would expect that more females than males would be born into mortality...that more babies would be girls. This has not been, nor is, the case. So unless something changes in the future (a possibility...but a bit of a stretch, imo) then this theory doesn't work.

[Guest]

This is my take on the matter (non-doctrinal, of course, just my own personal view):

 

1.)  The practice of polygamy in the early Saints had nothing to do with numbers or gender balance.

2.)  The practice of polygamy was an essential step in the RESTORATION of the principle of Eternal Marriage and Eternal Families.

 

See my Catholic to LDS gap post above (which also applies to most, if not all, Protestant Churches).

[Just_A_Guy]

Re gender distributions:  From what I understand--no, Mormonism did not suffer from an extraordinary surfeit of widows; and polygamy was not first and foremost an effort to marry off the widows that did exist.  However, early Mormonism did tend to attract more female converts than male; which is why we never suffered from the phenomenon of unmarried males who simply couldn't find a mate (an issue that results in some modern fundamentalist groups basically telling their young men that they have to find a wife from outside the faith and convert her, or--as in the case of the FLDS--simply excommunicating the excess young men for some imagined offense). 

 

I remember reading, a couple of years ago, an article that looked at early Mormon marriage rates and conversion demographics and concluded that, had we not pulled the plug on polygamy when we did, we soon would have developed a real problem with perennially unmarried males.  (Can't find the source at the moment, unfortunately.)

[The Folk Prophet]

This is my take on the matter (non-doctrinal, of course, just my own personal view):

 

1.)  The practice of polygamy in the early Saints had nothing to do with numbers or gender balance.

2.)  The practice of polygamy was an essential step in the RESTORATION of the principle of Eternal Marriage and Eternal Families.

 

See my Catholic to LDS gap post above (which also applies to most, if not all, Protestant Churches).

 

Point 1 is personal view, non-doctrinal - and I don't agree, but...  Point 2, I believe, can be substantiated as pretty concrete (though we'll avoid the "what does doctrine mean" discussion at this point.) :)

[The Folk Prophet]

Re gender distributions:  From what I understand--no, Mormonism did not suffer from an extraordinary surfeit of widows; and polygamy was not first and foremost an effort to marry off the widows that did exist.  However, early Mormonism did tend to attract more female converts than male; which is why we never suffered from the phenomenon of unmarried males who simply couldn't find a mate (an issue that results in some modern fundamentalist groups basically telling their young men that they have to find a wife from outside the faith and convert her, or--as in the case of the FLDS--simply excommunicating the excess young men for some imagined offense). 

 

I wonder, as a matter of curiosity, what the stats are of active, righteous females to males in the church nowadays. We sure have an excess of single females to single males in our ward. And at the temple the sessions are almost always (not always, always though) filled with more women than men.

[mordorbund]

This is more for Claire, but you might still enjoy discussing it with your husband CatholicLady.

 

The implications of the revelation on polygamy should lead to a good discussion between you and your boyfriend. The revelation teaches that marriages can be eternally binding. It goes through a few scenarios (sounding somewhat legalese).

 

 

13 And everything that is in the world, whether it be ordained of men, by ^athrones, or principalities, or powers, or things of name, whatsoever they may be, that are not by me or by my word, saith the Lord, shall be thrown down, and shall ^bnot remain after men are dead, neither in nor after the resurrection, saith the Lord your God.

 

14 For whatsoever things remain are by me; and whatsoever things are not by me shall be shaken and destroyed.

 

15 Therefore, if a ^aman marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

 

If you are not married for eternity, but rather only until death frees one of you from the covenant, then you have no claim on each other after this life.

 

 

 

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that ^acovenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

 

There's two scenarios here. If the two of you are married and the officiator pronounces it to be binding "forever and ever and always" or whatever phrasing is desired, that's really just a grand deception. The ordinance (sacrament) must be "by [the Lord's] word" by someone "anointed and appointed unto this power". Priesthood authority and all that. The only place where this can be done is in the temple.

 

Additionally, if the two of you are married in the temple by someone with authority (we use the term "sealed" for this, or sometime "temple marriages", and even "celestial marriage") you must continue faithful. This is captured in the clause "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise". If one of you breaks the covenant, God will not force the other to be bound.

 

The blessings of such are glorious (and referenced in another one of your threads):

 

 

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man ^amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the ^bnew and everlasting covenant, and it is ^csealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of ^dpromise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the ^ekeys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit ^fthrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s ^gBook of Life, ... it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their ^jexaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the ^kseeds forever and ever.

 

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from ^aeverlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be ^bgods, because they have ^call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

 

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my ^alaw ye cannot attain to this glory.

 

I would encourage you to have a discussion with your boyfriend about what kind of marriage he envisions for the two of you.

[CatholicLady]

My point was that Latter Day Saints do not need to reconcile Joseph Smith and polygamy any more than the rest of Christianity needs to reconcile the practice in ancient times. It seems apparent that God's chosen practiced plural marriage and God was okay with it.

 

I understand what you're saying. Though I must say I personally don't see it as being the same thing. One was the old testament guys before Christianity even existed, the other was less than two centuries ago by the very man who funded mormonism.

And even so, as far as the old testament goes, I actually don't think God ever was okay with plural marriages. The Old Testament is complicated, and personally I don't take much if any of it literally. I guess on this we will just have to agree to disagree, which is perfectly ok. :) Thanks for the responses.

Edited January 29, 2015 by CatholicLady

[The Folk Prophet]

I understand what you're saying. Though I must say I personally don't see it as being the same thing. 

 

It's the same thing in context of -- If God says to do something, the who are we to say He is wrong?

 

Of course, if you don't buy that plural marriage was ordained of God in the O.T. then the comparison fails. But the principle remains, and that is our plain justification for anything related to plural marriage and Joseph Smith's involvement therein.