Will polygamy be re-instituted after plagues of the last days wipe out a lot of the earth's population?

[Guest]

On 7/15/2016 at 9:11 AM, nuclearfuels said:

And your basing your claim on...? 

I wasn't actually making a claim.  I was advising an attitude WRT this topic.

Many people bring this up from time to time.  And many bring it up because of an ulterior motive.  So, the best way to address it is to change our attitudes and not worry about it.  The reason is that even if the male/female ratio changes tremendously, that isn't the only condition where we would practice it again.  There are MANY other conditions that would need to be present to justify its practice.  Too many people focus on one or two conditions and wonder "why aren't we practicing it?" -- or the other side -- "I sure hope we don't start that up again."

The most important thing is that no matter what the conditions, regardless of ratios, we do NOT practice it until the Lord tells us to.  Even when it was practiced, there were a whole lot of controls on the practice in the 1800s that many don't discuss because it doesn't fit the narrative.  So, it's really best to just take it as it comes.  Too much expectation can change a lot of what the reality is.  No preparation is necessary except that we follow the counsel of the prophet.

So the attitude I'm prescribing is: just live life as if it will never be practiced again.  And if it is practiced in our lifetimes, we just say,"Oh.  Ok.  So, Hulu tonight?"

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So the attitude I'm prescribing is: just live life as if it will never be practiced again.

As much as this advice is sound, I have to wonder: How would one go about living as if it will someday be practiced again?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As much as this advice is sound, I have to wonder: How would one go about living as if it will someday be practiced again?

Often, when I hear this question, the questioner's "ulterior motives" I mentioned (and I'm not saying NF falls in that category) is that some men are "hoping" for it.  So, stop hoping for it.  One does not simply walk into Mordor a plural marriage.

[Guest]

No, Mordor sounds about right.

[estradling75]

10 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

No, Mordor sounds about right.

Indeed....  after all as someone else pointed out a while back.... unless the wives are all sisters the guy is going to have multiple Mother in Laws 

[Guest]

And if the wives ARE all sisters, Heaven help him.

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

And if the wives ARE all sisters, Heaven help him.

It does seem to be a no win situation... so why any guy would do so without being commanded of the Lord... well it seems they haven't really thought it through

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 7/15/2016 at 6:35 PM, zil said:

nuclearfuels' OP appears to be entirely a quote from the source at the bottom of said post.  You're not the only one to assume otherwise.  Hopefully s/he figures out the quoting button so that future posts are more clear.

I doubt I will start doing this.  Perhaps I am wrong but do people here generally write about their own experiences and conclude with:

Woman’s Exponent, vol. 10, no. 11,
1 November 1881, p. 83

Jeni Broberg Holzapfel and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, eds., A Woman’s View: Helen Mar Whitney’s Reminiscences of Early Church History (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1997), 135–239.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/womans-view-helen-mar-whitneys-reminiscences-early-church-history/5-scenes-and-incidents

[nuclearfuels]

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

And if the wives ARE all sisters, Heaven help him.

This I would never do; sorry, but even I have my limits

[nuclearfuels]

On 7/15/2016 at 4:10 PM, jerome1232 said:

Mostly for the sake of debate and because I like to take the underdog position.

War tends to do that. Besides I thought calamities do as a matter of fact take more men's lives than women's. Not because the calamity itself is selective but because, well gender roles. Men tend (note this is a generality, not applicable to each and every individual) to be the ones that face danger and serve a protection role for women and children.

Also, as a side thought.... what about wealth? It's unequally distributed. Couldn't wealthy men afford to have much larger families than poor men? That's how polygamy tended to work in past times isn't it. Wealthy guys got the girls because they could afford it.

Re: your side thought: not sure about that, other than in Siam or other than in "The King and I"

My wife's ancestors, like most early LDS Pioneers in UT, were poor farmers and plural marriage practitioners. 

She didn't tell me about her ancestors who practiced that until after we'd been married for several years.  I hadn't really thought about plural marriage before she brought it up since my parents are converts.  She said she'd live it if it was commanded / re-instituted; not sure I would, at least without several prescription medications, regardless of the number of mothers in law.

[nuclearfuels]

On 7/15/2016 at 4:10 PM, jerome1232 said:

Mostly for the sake of debate and because I like to take the underdog position.

War tends to do that. Besides I thought calamities do as a matter of fact take more men's lives than women's. Not because the calamity itself is selective but because, well gender roles. Men tend (note this is a generality, not applicable to each and every individual) to be the ones that face danger and serve a protection role for women and children.

Also, as a side thought.... what about wealth? It's unequally distributed. Couldn't wealthy men afford to have much larger families than poor men? That's how polygamy tended to work in past times isn't it. Wealthy guys got the girls because they could afford it.

Re: your side thought: not sure about that, other than in Siam or other than in "The King and I"

My wife's ancestors, like most early LDS Pioneers in UT, were poor farmers and plural marriage practitioners. 

She didn't tell me about her ancestors who practiced that until after we'd been married for several years.  I hadn't really thought about plural marriage before she brought it up since my parents are converts.  She said she'd live it if it was commanded / re-instituted; not sure I would, at least without several prescription medications, regardless of the number of mothers in law.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 7/15/2016 at 11:39 AM, Jane_Doe said:

????  

Polygamy doesn't increase population growth unless there is something which selectively killed a bunch of men and not women (a very unlikely event).  Barring those highly unusual circumstance, the most efficient way to increase population is to 1) have women have lots of babies and 2) make sure those babies live to adulthood and are provide for.  Monogamy actually fulfills both of these most efficiently: the woman has a man to herself all the time and hence lots of copulation opportunities, and the children have a less divided father to better provide for them.

Interestingly, though, Mormonism does have a relatively high number of unwed females who are not (pardon the crassness) "producing" babies, but might be if polygamy were re-introduced.  This article deals with some of that (and compares us with Orthodox Jews).  The article suggests that a lot of the problem comes from a) higher rates of apostasy by males, particularly in the gap between graduation from high school and the beginning of missionary eligibility; and b) disparate marrying ages between Mormon men and Mormon women--at least in part, a function of the different missionary eligibility ages for men versus women.  The article further suggests that the problem will be somewhat alleviated as a natural consequence of the Church's recently changing the ages for missionary service.

With regard to the original post:  The notion that the secular world would see a need for polygamy, presupposes the secular world's seeing a need for marriage generally.  I think we would need a monumental change of course in current social trends, for that to occur.  Fish and bicycles, and all that . . .

Edited July 18, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[nuclearfuels]

Congress and SCOTUS have issued many monumental changes to traditional marriage in recent years.....add to that large groups of Muslim immigrants (my brothers in law being in that group), whose religion also advocates / requires polygamy....and we have ourselves a handy 5-10 year countdown  before we see it here legalized and practiced in America, just not amongst LDS. That will take another 10-20 years or so.  (Please note I am in no way volunteering or advocating this; just stating my reading of the tea leaves / slippery slope / arc of the moral universe aor whatever else you'd like to call it.)

That is an awesome article. I read it back when it was published and there seem to be several good points in it. 

Edited July 18, 2016 by nuclearfuels

[zil]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

I doubt I will start doing this.  Perhaps I am wrong but do people here generally write about their own experiences and conclude with:

Woman’s Exponent, vol. 10, no. 11,
1 November 1881, p. 83

...

People on this forum do not generally make a post that is 100% a quote (of multiple paragraphs) and has 0% of their own words, all without putting it in a quote box or otherwise identifying it as a quote.  Thus, some people appear (from their replies) to have been confused by your post which did exactly that (as far as I can tell).  It is only an observation and suggestion (which, to be blunt, you don't seem to take very well).

If you don't want to be helpful to your readers and fellow posters, that's your choice, but don't be surprised by the consequences, whatever they may be.

[nuclearfuels]

Aw, sweet, dear Zil - may I call you Zilly or Big Z?

I summon said consequences, henceforth and forever.

Please correct me if I'm not understanding how this works, but I'm still kind of new to this website. I think a post includes the title and text.  In this case, the unquoted quotation IMHO supports the yes-side of the question/topic/post title.

[mordorbund]

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

One does not simply walk into Mordor a plural marriage.

One can simply walk into @mordorbund, but one needs to be aware that @BenRaines is a half-step behind me. For perspective: 

[Guest]

Polygamy was never taken away as a commandment. D&C 132 is still canonized scripture. The practice is just temporarily suspended. It's still what Abraham Isaac and Jacob did and they are now gods sitting on thrones. If you read the Official Declaration from 1890 it doesn't denounce the practice, it just says they were suspending it for now to obey government laws so they wouldn't lose the temples. I see it coming back during the Millennium. Plural marriage is still practiced today. Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks are both sealed to more than one woman.

[Guest]

The following LDS prophets are sealed in polygamous sealings: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F Smith, Heber J Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee, and Howard W Hunter. The only prophets sealed to only 1 woman are George Albert Smith, David O McKay, Spencer W Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B Hinckley, and Thomas S Monson. The next 2 senior apostles in line to be prophet, Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks are both in polygamous sealings. So 10 out of the 16 prophets are in polygamous sealings and so are the next 2 in line to be prophet.

[NeedleinA]

6 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Aw, sweet, dear Zil - may I call you Zilly or Big Z?

"Ideally, all people would treat each other with respect and kindness and as individuals of great worth. Unfortunately, not everyone lives up to this principle.The problem isn’t unique to our day. In the Book of Mormon, we read how Laman and Lemuel called their younger brother Nephi names..."  lds.org

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

"Ideally, all people would treat each other with respect and kindness and as individuals of great worth. Unfortunately, not everyone lives up to this principle.

 People online need to memorize this. 

Do you want to say to someone-is this how you live your life offline? Are you this rude? This argumentative? You can't be. If you were, you'd have no friends, much less a spouse. 

Edited July 19, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Aw, sweet, dear Zil - may I call you Zilly or Big Z?

I summon said consequences, henceforth and forever.

Please correct me if I'm not understanding how this works, but I'm still kind of new to this website. I think a post includes the title and text.  In this case, the unquoted quotation IMHO supports the yes-side of the question/topic/post title.

It's probably best to call her "Zil". When you are here longer and develop a relationship with her, than you can call her what she wants to be called. 

[Blackmarch]

On 7/16/2016 at 8:45 PM, Traveler said:

A note about polygamy.  My great grandfather was instructed to live polygamy - he was not happy about it but did so because he was commanded by a prophet.  But he also wrote in his personal journal that many leaders in the Church (mostly at stake and ward levels) were abusing the commandment and as a result he prophesied that not only would the commandment of polygamy be taken from the earth but that the Church would come under great condemnation for the abuses.   I believe there is enough abuse in our current marriage covenants - that if anything - blessing will be taken from our generation - not added.

 

The Traveler

interesting that would be a decent explanation for some things happening today.

[An Investigator]

I have come to the conclusion on this, if  its going to be instituted in the Millennium then it's wont be as vom inducing as it is now for some or perhaps not all would have to practice it. Or maybe it's just a test to see if we would if commanded but we won't have to do it in actuality.   Either way I think focusing on the here and now is sometimes more important then what ifs.

[NeedleinA]

Regarding Plural Marriage, this quote has always stood out to me and been ingrained in my mind. This comes from the Church Manual to help Seminary Teachers know what they should or should not be teaching regarding Plural Marriage. So the instruction to Seminary Teachers reads...

"Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation."

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS AND CHURCH HISTORY SEMINARY TEACHER RESOURCE MANUAL

Edited July 19, 2016 by NeedleinA

[nuclearfuels]

On 7/18/2016 at 5:52 PM, Zarahemla said:

The following LDS prophets are sealed in polygamous sealings: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F Smith, Heber J Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B Lee, and Howard W Hunter. The only prophets sealed to only 1 woman are George Albert Smith, David O McKay, Spencer W Kimball, Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B Hinckley, and Thomas S Monson. The next 2 senior apostles in line to be prophet, Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks are both in polygamous sealings. So 10 out of the 16 prophets are in polygamous sealings and so are the next 2 in line to be prophet.

Well said.

Facts can be such stubborn things, to some people.