Polygamy in class!

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

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.

This concept of requiring approval from the prior wife/wives before marrying another wife, is probably the "Law of Sarah" mentioned in D&C 132.  It goes both ways--prior wives are supposed to consent to the action, if done in righteousness; but if no consent is given, that's the end of it and the wedding can't go forward.  D&C 132 gives one exemption to the "Law of Sarah", and that's in the case of a man who holds the keys of the sealing power (i.e. the President of the Church, and arguably members of the Quorum of the Twelve)--in that case, the Law of Sarah doesn't apply.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Sunday21]

On 2017-09-12 at 3:47 AM, JohnsonJones said:

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.

Hi. It is in the accompanying teaching material for the instructor that goes into the topic.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sunday21

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

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?

As far as I can tell from history, Joseph Smith didn't seem to move forward without a very convincing angel in front of him. He asked a question. He received an answer. He was commanded to live it. Now, was this compulsory means; however, I think God is in a different position then you and I (possibly ). This bring to my heart and mind Abraham 3: 25.

[An Investigator]

We are a couple in front in Sunday School... no mention thank goodness as there are a lot of people in my ward in not ideal circumstances, myself included which I think it would have upset.  I have no desire for Polygamy what so ever and if I am widowed I will remain single or marry another non member, I feel very strongly about it and nearly didn't join the Church over this topic (I was aware that men can be sealed to more than one women).   I will do my non member husbands temple work when he dies or the kids can do ours and then I will see what happens.  The scriptures say whatever kingdom we are placed in we will be happy and that's good enough for me.   If exaltation requires Polygamy then I guess that's not where i am headed (although I am open to the possibility I may change my mind with a perfect knowledge)  I am ok with that as I trust God I will be happy.

Edited September 13, 2017 by An Investigator

[laronius]

25 minutes ago, An Investigator said:

  If exaltation requires Polygamy then I guess that's not where i am headed (although I am open to the possibility I may change my mind with a perfect knowledge) 

I think that's a good attitude to have @An Investigator. Sometimes there are things in the gospel that you just have to put on the shelf as it were in terms of understanding, waiting for the day when God chooses to bring them into greater light for us. Until then we hold onto those things that we do have a testimony of and don't let the things on the shelf hinder our progression. I think the practice of polygamy has a placed reserved on many a shelf.

[laronius]

12 hours ago, Anddenex said:

As far as I can tell from history, Joseph Smith didn't seem to move forward without a very convincing angel in front of him. He asked a question. He received an answer. He was commanded to live it. Now, was this compulsory means; however, I think God is in a different position then you and I (possibly ). This bring to my heart and mind Abraham 3: 25.

Yes. It reminds me of the story of Heber C Kimball and his wife Vilate. My great, great grandfather only consented to something similar after he had a dream (never recorded what he experienced) but I think the Lord is very mindful of our weaknesses and will provide sufficient witness to meet the command being given us.

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 10:10 PM, Vort said:

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.

 

According to my great-grandfather’s journal there was something added to the marriage of additional wives that included the wife(s) already under covenant.  Something along the lines expressed in scripture with the model of Abraham and Sarah.

Also – thought not covered in the lesson – few know the ancient difference between a wife and a concubine.   For our modern time, a concubine is basically a mistress of much lower status than a wife.  For this reason, many modern women would be unhappy to be considered a concubine but anciently a wife was someone that came to marriage with a dowry which belonged to her and was 100% under her control – if there was a divorce it was required that a wife be given back her dowry in full.  Thus, a wife had a little more power with finances.   In the scriptural record of Jacob – he worked for the dowry of his first two wives which makes this account a little more interesting to my studies.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, An Investigator said:

We are a couple in front in Sunday School... no mention thank goodness as there are a lot of people in my ward in not ideal circumstances, myself included which I think it would have upset.  I have no desire for Polygamy what so ever and if I am widowed I will remain single or marry another non member, I feel very strongly about it and nearly didn't join the Church over this topic (I was aware that men can be sealed to more than one women).   I will do my non member husbands temple work when he dies or the kids can do ours and then I will see what happens.  The scriptures say whatever kingdom we are placed in we will be happy and that's good enough for me.   If exaltation requires Polygamy then I guess that's not where i am headed (although I am open to the possibility I may change my mind with a perfect knowledge)  I am ok with that as I trust God I will be happy.

 

My wife and I have a very good friend who’s first husband died in an accident shortly after their being married and sealed in the temple.  She later married a very good guy and together they have had 5 children.  Interestingly this second husband has been a bishop but his family is sealed to someone else.  He confided to me that he has fasted and prayed about his not being sealed but never given a complete answer or understanding but he feels strongly that his prayers have been (will be) answered in that he has been given the understanding that all things will turn out for good and he, as he remains faithful, will be sealed and receive Celestial glory.  Although he does not know exactly all the details of the sealing yet to come – he is assured no one, not him nor his wife’s previous husband will have any regret.  I believe him.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

46 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Also – thought not covered in the lesson – few know the ancient difference between a wife and a concubine.   For our modern time, a concubine is basically a mistress of much lower status than a wife.

I agree with your first sentence above, but my understanding of concubinage is much different from what you say. From what I understand, a concubine was a wife in the modern sense of the word. She had claim on her husband for her maintenance; her children were fully legitimate, not bastards; and the stigma of unmarried cohabitation did not apply. However, she and her children had limited or no inheritance rights, and her societal status was definitely beneath that of a "full" wife.

When concubines are mentioned in the Bible, they are typically also called wives. For example, Keturah was called Abraham's wife in Genesis 25:1, but is later called his concubine in 1 Chronicles 1:32. Similarly, Genesis 35:22 identifies Bilhah as Jacob's concubine, while Genesis 37:2 classifies her as one of Jacob's wives.

We today think of concubines as "mistresses" or "lovers" or "kept women". I believe that is not the case. They were wives, though of a lesser social and legal status. For purposes of chastity, Old Testament mistresses, especially those of prophets and righteous men, should be considered wives, not mistresses.

[laronius]

Beware @Traveler, @Vort is a stickler for proper terminology. But you've been around for a while so you probably already knew that. 

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, laronius said:

Beware @Traveler, @Vort is a stickler for proper terminology. But you've been around for a while so you probably already knew that. 

It comes with his age. Being 85 makes you grumpy about everything. 

[zil]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It comes with his age. Being 85 makes you grumpy about everything. 

Suddenly @estradling75's login name and avatar begin to make sense...

[estradling75]

Just now, zil said:

Suddenly @estradling75's login name and avatar begin to make sense...

It's just now making sense....  That is a rather slow pickup for you 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

It's just now making sense....  That is a rather slow pickup for you 

We are all just very glad that someone of your advanced age and diminished mental ability can still make a joke. 

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

We are all just very glad that someone of your advanced age and diminished mental ability can still make a joke. 

Yeap... and I can still make myself a pair of Alligator boots too.. 

[Vort]

23 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It comes with his age. Being 85 makes you grumpy about everything. 

85-year-olds are grumpy because every morning, they get up and say, "Oooh! Man! I feel like I'm 85."

[Traveler]

33 minutes ago, Vort said:

We today think of concubines as "mistresses" or "lovers" or "kept women". I believe that is not the case. They were wives, though of a lesser social and legal status. For purposes of chastity, Old Testament mistresses, especially those of prophets and righteous men, should be considered wives, not mistresses.

Try telling your spouse you discovered she is really a concubine and see what connotation that brings in todays society (I will make a believer of you yet) - regardless of what the dictionary says.

 

The Traveler

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Try telling your spouse you discovered she is really a concubine and see what connotation that brings in todays society (I will make a believer of you yet) - regardless of what the dictionary says.

Your humorously intended post brings up a good point for serious discussion. It is indeed true that language drifts and word meanings change. But we must not apply modern word usages to older patterns. The word "gay" has lost its meaning of "happy, lively, joyful", and has taken the meaning of "homosexual". We may rue this, but it's a linguistic and societal fact. You might as well be fighting the tide as to refuse to acknowledge this. Yet even so, we don't (or shouldn't) read James 2:3 and conclude that James was referring to transvestites.

The case with the word "concubine" is actually even more insidious than this. The meaning of the word "concubine" has never changed; rather, the institution of concubinage has gone away, so our understanding of what a concubine is has become deficient. In common understanding, a concubine is a lover or a mistress -- but that is not because of language drift. It's because of plain old ignorance. We don't know what a concubine is because we don't live in a society that has concubinage. We do live in a society that has people who cheat on their spouse and keep mistresses, so we wrongly assume that that's what a concubine is.

If your wife gets upset at being called a "concubine", that is because she doesn't like the connotation. Either she thinks you're calling her a "mistress", as most in our society might think, or she thinks you're calling her a "lesser wife", much closer to the actual meaning. In either case, it's not a good thing, so naturally she's not going to like it.

It is true that I sometimes am a stickler for proper word usage, but normally only when it's actually important. That is the case with "concubine". If we are to understand the Old Testament and what concubine-related scriptures mean, we must understand concubinage, beyond the misconception (no pun intended) that it's about mistresses.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Your humorously intended post brings up a good point for serious discussion. It is indeed true that language drifts and word meanings change. But we must not apply modern word usages to older patterns. The word "gay" has lost its meaning of "happy, lively, joyful", and has taken the meaning of "homosexual". We may rue this, but it's a linguistic and societal fact. You might as well be fighting the tide as to refuse to acknowledge this. Yet even so, we don't (or shouldn't) read James 2:3 and conclude that James was referring to transvestites.

The case with the word "concubine" is actually even more insidious than this. The meaning of the word "concubine" has never changed; rather, the institution of concubinage has gone away, so our understanding of what a concubine is has become deficient. In common understanding, a concubine is a lover or a mistress -- but that is not because of language drift. It's because of plain old ignorance. We don't know what a concubine is because we don't live in a society that has concubinage. We do live in a society that has people who cheat on their spouse and keep mistresses, so we wrongly assume that that's what a concubine is.

If your wife gets upset at being called a "concubine", that is because she doesn't like the connotation. Either she thinks you're calling her a "mistress", as most in our society might think, or she thinks you're calling her a "lesser wife", much closer to the actual meaning. In either case, it's not a good thing, so naturally she's not going to like it.

It is true that I sometimes am a stickler for proper word usage, but normally only when it's actually important. That is the case with "concubine". If we are to understand the Old Testament and what concubine-related scriptures mean, we must understand concubinage, beyond the misconception (no pun intended) that it's about mistresses.

 

I think we are on the same page – just stumbling over word used in ancient and modern settings.  Another area I believe is problematic is that of a King and kingdom.   Which would also include a Suzerain and vassal rulers – which also carry the king title.  We see a little of this in Alma when Ammon goes before “the King” and then we learn that “the King” is subject to his Father who is the king over all the land.  There is another thread called “the most high” that has this same problem.   

I find it interesting because Jesus has the title of “Lord of Lords” and King of Kings.  Many think that such a title means that there is no Lord above such a Lord or King above such a King.  Or a higher above a Most High.  In ancient middle Eastern society, a Suzerain can appoint Vassals that govern their realm within the greater kingdom.  Those that oppose the LDS doctrine of the G-dhead and champion the Trinity point to such scripture where Jehovah says “Besides me there is no G-d” as criticism of the LDS doctrine.  But in ancient Middle Eastern kingdoms a Vassal sat on his throne as the sovereign overseer of the law in his appointed realm.   It was common language for such a Vassal to say “there is no other king (governor or ruler) beside him.  But such did not mean that there was no distant Suzerain that granted them the right to rule.  We see this same doctrine in the Pharoses of Egypt as well as the divine right of Kings during the Dark Ages.   

This idea is again expressed when Jesus implies that regardless if something come from him – it is the same as coming from the Father.  Traditional Christians once understood this and did not have a problem – which is the power of the Pope to define doctrine or things like scriptural canon.  But then reverse their thinking as soon as they encounter the LDS G-dhead.

Thanks for letting me rant.  Assuming you are okay with my rant.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

Something of interest.  It differs from what History shows, but I've heard that in regards to the Gospel, even the term Wife and Concubine actually had a FAR different meaning than what we historians label them as.

From what I heard, in regards to the truth, or the GOSPEL (as opposed to history) a wife was one that was sealed to their husband for all time and eternity.  A concubine was a wife that was only married for time.

[Traveler]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Something of interest.  It differs from what History shows, but I've heard that in regards to the Gospel, even the term Wife and Concubine actually had a FAR different meaning than what we historians label them as.

From what I heard, in regards to the truth, or the GOSPEL (as opposed to history) a wife was one that was sealed to their husband for all time and eternity.  A concubine was a wife that was only married for time.

 

I cannot say that I agree from a realistic point of view - but that I do like this concept -- a lot!

 

The Traveler

[seashmore]

On September 13, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Traveler said:

 

My wife and I have a very good friend who’s first husband died in an accident shortly after their being married and sealed in the temple.  She later married a very good guy and together they have had 5 children.  Interestingly this second husband has been a bishop but his family is sealed to someone else.  He confided to me that he has fasted and prayed about his not being sealed but never given a complete answer or understanding but he feels strongly that his prayers have been (will be) answered in that he has been given the understanding that all things will turn out for good and he, as he remains faithful, will be sealed and receive Celestial glory.  Although he does not know exactly all the details of the sealing yet to come – he is assured no one, not him nor his wife’s previous husband will have any regret.  I believe him.

 

The Traveler

From an address by Ezra Taft Benson in Oct 1988:

Quote

I also recognize that not all women in the Church will have an opportunity for marriage and motherhood in mortality. But if those of you in this situation are worthy and endure faithfully, you can be assured of all blessings from a kind and loving Heavenly Father—and I emphasize all blessings.

I assure you that if you have to wait even until the next life to be blessed with a choice companion, God will surely compensate you. Time is numbered only to man. God has your eternal perspective in mind.

I don't see why this couldn't also apply to men. FULL SPECULATION AHEAD!!! Calling upon the numbers game, it seems there are more active/temple worthy women in the Church than men. Also, take into account WWII, a situation that I suspect took lives of many active, temple worthy men before they had the chance to find a companion. As an unmarried woman whose parents were sealed, but whose mother is not currently keeping her covenants, I have an unusual perspective on this. I appreciate the doctrine of plural marriage. Maybe not the implementation of it in mortality, but certainly the possibility of it in the next life. For all we know, it may be the only way possible for some faithful and worthy folks to enter into that covenant. I personally have no qualms about being a "sister wife," so long as I can tolerate the other wife/s (and they me) for eternity. There was a prophet (20th century, I believe) who lost a wife and remarried what some deemed rather quickly. The life of the prophets DVD on his life (I've always had trouble connecting names with stories) has his daughter talking (or an actor reading her reaction) that her mother wanted him to remarry. A good marriage is a happy state, and she would not want him to be denied that joy and companionship just because she was on the other side. I tend to agree with her.

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by seashmore