Polygamy in class!

[Sunday21]

I was looking at the teacher's lesson materials for D&C 31 and it includes frank discussion of pologamy! I never thought I would see this discussed in class. https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

I have never heard this topic discussed at church before!

This should be an interesting class..I wonder how the sisters will react?

Edited September 12, 2017 by Sunday21

[Fether]

1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

I was looking at the teacher's lesson materials for D&C 31 and it includes frank discussion of pologamy! I never thought I would see this discussed in class. https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

I have never heard this topic discussed at church before!

This should be an interesting class..I wonder how the sisters will react?

I don't know that there are any teachings old or new that are not taught in class. Even as early as gospel principles it states we will be god's.

[Sunday21]

5 minutes ago, Fether said:

I don't know that there are any teachings old or new that are not taught in class. Even as early as gospel principles it states we will be god's.

@Fether. Polygamy is not a favorite topic in Relief Society! There could be a riot. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

5 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I was looking at the teacher's lesson materials for D&C 31 and it includes frank discussion of pologamy! I never thought I would see this discussed in class. https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints

I have never heard this topic discussed at church before!

This should be an interesting class..I wonder how the sisters will react?

Wow, I share your surprise.  I have, of course, heard polygamy briefly mentioned at church, but never in any detail.  I think this is cool.

BTW, speaking of polygamy, you might enjoy this:
 

 

[Fether]

37 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

@Fether. Polygamy is not a favorite topic in Relief Society! There could be a riot. 

Let me rephrase... I don't think there is any doctrine in the church, old or new, that the church keeps out of lesson books.

But regardless of the controversy of the doctrine... it is still there and we will all need to come to terms with it eventually.

[Vort]

As a matter of definition, marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. This is always the case. Plural marriage is not a marriage consisting of one man and multiple women; rather, it is multiple marriages, each between one man and one woman, where the man is the same in the various marriages. I find this distinction important; my great-grandfather's marriage to his first wife was separate from his marriage to my great-grandmother. Plural marriage was not some sort of communal  polyamorous marriage idea. I do hope that that point comes through in the lesson.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Vort

[mordorbund]

The portion on plural marriage is one of six supplemental sections and is introduced with the following:

Quote

The following information is provided to help you address questions class members may have about the practice of plural marriage. This topic should not be the focus of the lesson.

It sounds to me like the Church's intent for including that in the lesson is to enable teachers to handle questions on it and not get blindsided. I figure if you hear about polygamy in class it's because the subject is introduced by a classmember and not a teacher.

[JohnsonJones]

I looked through the lesson and have to admit, polygamy didn't actually come to the forefront of my mind.  I was more thinking along the lines that it discussed eternal marriages and how we can be blessed by it.  We could get into the history of it, but overall, it felt more like discussing the blessings of being sealed in the temple for all eternity.

It's probably because we all get different things out of lessons in many instances.

[Guest]

How much are we expected to accept polygamy anyways?

I am OK with polygamy as something other people like Brigham Young used to do, that polygamy is OK for other people.  But it is something I would rather not participate in myself, if I were hypothetically ever given the choice.  I like my monogamous, love-based marriage.

Is polygamy ever compulsory for exaltation, or has it always been optional for everyone?  Also, isn't it true that the wives in the  old days had veto rights if they didn't want to become embroiled in a polygamous relationship?

Edited September 12, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[zil]

14 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

How much are we expected to accept polygamy anyways?

I am OK with polygamy as something other people like Brigham Young used to do, that polygamy is OK for other people.  But it is something I would rather not participate in myself, if I were hypothetically ever given the choice.  I like my monogamous, love-based marriage.

And if your wife (heaven forbid) dies tragically at a young age?  Will you remain single?  Will you allow yourself to love another woman and not get sealed to her for eternity, too?  As much as we like to say plural marriage is for past peoples to worry about, and as much as plural marriage in mortality (all alive at once) is something for past (and perhaps future) peoples to worry about, the idea of a man having multiple wives for eternity is not something this generation gets to pretend isn't an issue.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zil said:

And if your wife (heaven forbid) dies tragically at a young age?  Will you remain single?  Will you allow yourself to love another woman and not get sealed to her for eternity, too?  As much as we like to say plural marriage is for past peoples to worry about, and as much as plural marriage in mortality (all alive at once) is something for past (and perhaps future) peoples to worry about, the idea of a man having multiple wives for eternity is not something this generation gets to pretend isn't an issue.

I have thought of that and yes, I do intend to remain single in such a case out of respect for my wife.

Like I said, I am OK with polygamy for other people, but not for myself.

Edited September 12, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[zil]

Just now, DoctorLemon said:

I have thought of that and yes, I do intend to remain single in such a case out of respect for my wife.

Glad you've thought of that.  I hope you're never in the position.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zil said:

Glad you've thought of that.  I hope you're never in the position.

A bigger issue is what happens if I die before my wife.

I think I could get along just fine if my wife were deceased without another wife.  But, if I were to die, would my wife be able to get along just fine?

A selfish part of myself admits I would rather not see her remarry in such a case, because she is mine and no one else's.  However, another part of me realizes it would be bad for her financially and emotionally not to do so.  I recognize these feelings I have come from a very selfish part of myself, but the feelings are there.

The only solution I see is to make sure I outlive my wife . . . 

[zil]

2 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

A selfish part of myself admits I would rather not see her remarry in such a case, because she is mine and no one else's.  However, another part of me realizes it would be bad for her financially and emotionally not to do so.  I recognize these feelings I have come from a very selfish part of myself, but the feelings are there.

IMO, these are the exact same feelings many women have when pondering plural marriage.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zil said:

IMO, these are the exact same feelings many women have when pondering plural marriage.

Yeah, I guess the prospect of me ever being in a plural marriage bothers me a lot.  It just isn't the type of relationship I would want to be in, even if I accept the fact that it can exist and work for other people. 

I would do it if the Lord clearly command me, but I would never do it if I had any sort of an option not to without eternal consequences.

 

[mordorbund]

29 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

The only solution I see is to make sure I outlive my wife . . . 

In the future, put down the pillow before saying things like that.

[Midwest LDS]

I think I agree to an extent with @DoctorLemon. I would never want to marry more than one wife in this life, although I've never had a problem with the church's previous practice of it as it was commanded of God. I'm just glad I don't have to live it now☺. It sounds like it would be incredibly difficult to share the emotional intimacy I have with my wife with other women. However, I don't know how I would react if I lost her. My mom was miserable when she lost my stepdad, and she was never really herself again until she remarried. I also know that if I were to develop feelings of that strength for another woman after I lost my wife, I wouldn't want anything other than an eternal marriage. I'm just going to hope and pray it's never an issue, the thought of losing my wife makes me too sad, and deal with it if it happens to me. 

Edited September 12, 2017 by Midwest LDS

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

Also, isn't it true that the wives in the  old days had veto rights if they didn't want to become embroiled in a polygamous relationship?

Yes, the polygamous relationship has to be right for both.  But, as what happened to Emma - God was not pleased by the obstacles she put on God's command to Joseph to take another wife.  If she would have continued with the obstacles, she would have sinned greatly.

[anatess2]

35 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Yeah, I guess the prospect of me ever being in a plural marriage bothers me a lot.  It just isn't the type of relationship I would want to be in, even if I accept the fact that it can exist and work for other people. 

I would do it if the Lord clearly command me, but I would never do it if I had any sort of an option not to without eternal consequences.

 

I would have no problem with my husband taking on another wife when commanded by God to do so - even if I'm still alive.

But yes, if God commands ME to take on another husband - even after my husband passes - I would probably beg and plead and cry for God to spare me.  I find comfort in the history that only Priesthood holders have been commanded to do this.

Edited September 12, 2017 by anatess2

[mordorbund]

20 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

It sounds like it would be incredibly difficult to share the emotional intimacy I have with my wife with other women.

This is the same reason I forbade my wife from having more than one child. I refuse to divide my love.

[Vort]

When one of my younger sisters was a little girl, maybe six or seven, she saw something that led her to ask our mother about sex. Mom, being the person she is, outlined the entire process from fertilization to childbirth. My baby sister was appalled and disgusted by the whole thing, and kept that feeling well into her teenage years. Only adulthood softened and modified her negative views on that topic.

I believe that our mortal understanding of marriage and intimacy is akin to a six-year-old's grasp of the nuance of adult marital sexual relationships. That is to say, I don't think we really know what we're talking about. Plural marriage is "icky". Ooh, yuck! That's gross! That sounds terrible! How unfair! I think these are the reactions of an ignorant child.

If plural marriage is indeed a celestial institution, then beyond all argument it is a wonderful, holy, joyful thing. If we don't see it like that, then the fault lies in us, not in plural marriage.

That said, we are not required to live plural marriage right now. Quite the opposite, in fact. So the very best thing to do at this point is QUIT OBSESSING ABOUT PLURAL MARRIAGE.

[/lecture]

36 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

This is the same reason I forbade my wife from having more than one child. I refuse to divide my love.

This is actually exactly what I have thought before concerning LDS polygamy. I don't love my oldest child any less for having had other children, nor do I think my relationship with him is lessened by his siblings' existence. Changed, certainly, but not lessened. And his family experience is substantially altered by his siblings, on the whole much for the better, I think. I see no reason to suppose the same principles would not apply in plural marriage relationships.

[Midwest LDS]

I see you're point @Vort it's not anything to worry about for the moment. Plus as I said it's never bothered me, I just feel like it would be hard to live hypothetically. The only way it would directly affect me is in the case of the death of my spouse and honestly I'll worry about it then.

[Midwest LDS]

Also, I've never thought of it as gross or icky, I just see how it could be hard (you're fighting with one wife so you commiserate with another, invariably you have wives you prefer to others see Jacob/Israel, certain wives get jealous of others etc.) I think it would be hard and I admire the early brethren and sisters for doing their best to fulfil God's commands despite the difficulties involved.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

Also, I've never thought of it as gross or icky, I just see how it could be hard (you're fighting with one wife so you commiserate with another, invariably you have wives you prefer to others see Jacob/Israel, certain wives get jealous of others etc.) I think it would be hard and I admire the early brethren and sisters for doing their best to fulfil God's commands despite the difficulties involved.

I think this kind of difficulty is why the commandment was only given to the elect.  If the practice was brought back for all members, that would mean we've reached Zion-like spirituality and would be a great achievement for humankind, wouldn't it?

[Midwest LDS]

I think that's a good point @anatess2 I would love to see us reach a Zion like level of righteousness. Although I'm not expecting it anytome soon☺