One of my ancestors had two wives who lived in separate houses on the same property. One did the cooking, and the other did the laundry. One winter the "laundry" wife became ill, so during a blizzard, the husband took a large bag of laundry to the other wife, who told him in no uncertain terms that she did not do the laundry and threw him out into the storm. He became ill with pneumonia and died shortly thereafter.
Hilarious and heartbreaking.
Lydia Ann Cook was born in Peoria, Illinois, on 6 August 1830 and was married 6 March 1846 in Winter Quarters, Nebraska. Chauncy Porter's first wife, Amy Sumner, died 7 April 1847 at Winter Quarters.
There was nothing hilarious about the Winter Quarters conditions. All I have heard are truly heartbreaking stories. Orson Spencer's first wife died there. Before she died, he wrote to her family asking for them to take her in because she was so ill (Orson had been called on a mission by Brigham Young). They said "yes" if Orson and his wife were to renounce Mormonism and return to the east. Orson said "no", Catherine died, Orson left on his mission, and his children (including Howard) were left to take care of themselves and make it to the Great Salt Lake, virtually on their own. Heartbreaking.
Orson's brother, Hyrum, died also there from exhaustion after successfully stealing back into Nauvoo and rounding up all the family livestock. He fell off his horse on the way back and died. My gg grandfather buried him where he fell. Heartbreaking.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
Jason wrote:What if a women had two husbands? Could she have both? Wonder why it works only for the guy.
I've wondered about this as well. Let me pose a hypothetical here. I'm really interested in the TBM view and how they came to terms with this one...because I haven't really been able to.
Let's say I marry a young man. We're both in our 20's. We are sealed in the temple. We have no children. He dies in a car accident.
I remarry. I cannot be sealed to my second husband. We can only be married for time. I have children with this second husband, and we live the rest of our days together. These children are sealed for eternity to the first husband who I spent a very small fraction of my life with. It just seems that the second husband is left out in the cold. Why can't both of them be sealed to me?
If the situation happened in reverse, and I were a man, I could have both wives sealed to me.
This never made sense to me.
I have more questions, but we'll tackle this one first.
Gaz PM'd me about starting this thread, and I suggested he post it in the Celestial Forum. I would really like to keep discussion of this topic respectful. I think there are a lot of us who struggle with this issue.
Jason wrote:What if a women had two husbands? Could she have both? Wonder why it works only for the guy.
I've wondered about this as well. Let me pose a hypothetical here. I'm really interested in the TBM view and how they came to terms with this one...because I haven't really been able to.
Let's say I marry a young man. We're both in our 20's. We are sealed in the temple. We have no children. He dies in a car accident.
I remarry. I cannot be sealed to my second husband. We can only be married for time. I have children with this second husband, and we live the rest of our days together. These children are sealed for eternity to the first husband who I spent a very small fraction of my life with. It just seems that the second husband is left out in the cold. Why can't both of them be sealed to me?
If the situation happened in reverse, and I were a man, I could have both wives sealed to me.
This never made sense to me.
I have more questions, but we'll tackle this one first.
Gaz PM'd me about starting this thread, and I suggested he post it in the Celestial Forum. I would really like to keep discussion of this topic respectful. I think there are a lot of us who struggle with this issue.
The only thing that makes sense to me is the issue of paternity. LDS theology posits eternal increase, meaning that godly husbands and wives will be procreating, bringing spirits into existence. If you have two husbands and one mother, you're never sure who the father is. (I'm thinking in terms of the nineteenth century, so bear with me.)
The larger issue is of course that according to the LDS church, our universe has a patriarchal order. Having more than one husband sealed to one wife switches the primacy to the female, which cannot happen within a patriarchal context.
Jason wrote:What if a women had two husbands? Could she have both? Wonder why it works only for the guy.
I've wondered about this as well. Let me pose a hypothetical here. I'm really interested in the TBM view and how they came to terms with this one...because I haven't really been able to.
Let's say I marry a young man. We're both in our 20's. We are sealed in the temple. We have no children. He dies in a car accident.
I remarry. I cannot be sealed to my second husband. We can only be married for time. I have children with this second husband, and we live the rest of our days together. These children are sealed for eternity to the first husband who I spent a very small fraction of my life with. It just seems that the second husband is left out in the cold. Why can't both of them be sealed to me?
If the situation happened in reverse, and I were a man, I could have both wives sealed to me.
This never made sense to me.
I have more questions, but we'll tackle this one first.
Gaz PM'd me about starting this thread, and I suggested he post it in the Celestial Forum. I would really like to keep discussion of this topic respectful. I think there are a lot of us who struggle with this issue.
First of all, I believe most TBMs haven't thought it through.
Next, the ones who have, like you, admit they are troubled by it, or they have to compartmentalize to avoid the dissonance that results.
The ones who have compartmentalized can only come up with the answer such as "I don't worry about it. God will take care of it in the end. I know it is a true principle."
Obviously, you are't going there. Hence, the obvious troubling nature of the whole concept.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland
gramps wrote:First of all, I believe most TBMs haven't thought it through.
Next, the ones who have, like you, admit they are troubled by it, or they have to compartmentalize to avoid the dissonance that results.
The ones who have compartmentalized can only come up with the answer such as "I don't worry about it. God will take care of it in the end. I know it is a true principle."
Obviously, you are't going there. Hence, the obvious troubling nature of the whole concept.
The only conclusion I have been able to reach is that there are severe gaps in our understanding of what the afterlife is really going to be like. I think that to assume that we will be having sexual intercourse to create "spirit children" in the next life is ludicrous at best. If we are Gods and Goddesses, exhalted beings, we will be stewards of powers of creation that we cannot comprehend right now. Personally, I hope that the actual sex act doesn't completely go away, because it's an enjoyable part of marriage. ;)
But, to think that this is the only way "spirit children" will be created, is, in my mind, a very narrow-minded view.
My personal thought is that there will be a partner for everyone, and the details have simply not been revealed yet. I really think that the early leaders of the Church got it wrong on this one.
liz3564 wrote:The only conclusion I have been able to reach is that there are severe gaps in our understanding of what the afterlife is really going to be like. I think that to assume that we will be having sexual intercourse to create "spirit children" in the next life is ludicrous at best. If we are Gods and Goddesses, exhalted beings, we will be stewards of powers of creation that we cannot comprehend right now. Personally, I hope that the actual sex act doesn't completely go away, because it's an enjoyable part of marriage. ;)
But, to think that this is the only way "spirit children" will be created, is, in my mind, a very narrow-minded view.
My personal thought is that there will be a partner for everyone, and the details have simply not been revealed yet. I really think that the early leaders of the Church got it wrong on this one.
I guess I don't worry about it that much, as I have concluded that the LDS version of things is off, to say the least. So, the sealings aren't really going to matter, as far as I'm concerned. And even if they do, I've fallen away, so I'm not eligible for celestial marriage, anyway.
I see the Law of Plural Marriage as being a higher law, or rather a progression from Eternal Marriage. If a good and faithful man has shown heed and diligence to the Law of Eternal Marriage, He is then invited to extend his covenant to further wives and children.
In regards to why women are not selaed to more than one man, what would be the purpose behind that? The idea behind this is to bring as many children into existence as possible to help them progress. They are brought up by parents and siblings who believe in and strive to emulate the teachings of Christ, with a priesthood bearer who holds the authority to seal al of these blessings upon their head. These are the blessings of Abraham brought to fulfillment. A single woman sealed to more than one man is silly. A single man can shre his seed with more than one woman, it does not work the other way around, and the same sociality that exists among us here will exist among us there.
The only thing that we take with us into the eternities is progeny. Albert Pine stated "What we do for ourselves ends with us, but what we do for others and the world remains and is immortal." There is nothing in the priesthood that serves us, the priesthood only exists to serve others. The Father himself stated that his work and his glory is to bring about the immortality and Eternal Life of man. What better way than to rear a righteous generation.
How many children did Brigham Young have? How many served missions? How many children of God did those missionaries seal the name of Christ upon? How many of these missionaries had children who also served missions? And how may of those who were brought to Christ by these missionaries themselves brought others to Christ? It is estimated that Heber C. Kimball, through his missionary work and progeny, is responsible for bringing Millions to Christ.
I wanted to add this story to the discussion. This was shared in regards to trials similar to Abraham having to take Isacc up the mountain to be sacrificed. A trial of faith to see if the individual(s) will stand.
From "Joseph Smith the Prophet" by Truman Madsen, pg. 92-93
We have mentioned that Brigham Young had his tsts. So did Heber C. Kimball - he was tried to the core. I believe there are those even in the Church who would say in their hearts that the test of Abraham is too much; that a loving God would not require such a thing of any man, least of all someone as faithful as Abraham. Those who have such thoughts had better think again. Modern revelation indicates at least three times that each of us who seeks eternal life must one day be tried, even as Abraham. I put the question once to Hugh B Brown, when we were in Israel: why was Abraham commanded to go up on that mountain (traditionally Mount Moriah in jerusalem) and offer as a sacrifice his only hope for the promised posterity? President Brown wisely replied, "Abraham needed to learn something about Abraham." by being tested, all of us will one day know how much our hearts are really set on the kingdom of God.
Heber C . Kimball's test was of that kind. A pure and humble man, at the restoration of the principle of plural marriage he was commanded - and that's the word, not counselled - to take a second wife; and to make it worse, in that soul-wrenching setting he was told he must not yet confide this to his own companion, Vilate, whom he loved with a pure love, and with whom he had shared his spiritual life since their marriage, and particularly from the time they entered the Church. At the time of his baptism a voice had spoken to him, giving him some insight into his origins, his geneology, and also whispering of things yet future. One thing he was told by the Spirit even then was that he and his wife would never be seperated. Now, years later, he was being asked by a prophet to become seperate in a sence - to enter plural marriage.
Filled with anxiety, Heber spent much of his nights pacing the floor. His dear Vilate begged him to tell her what was wrong, but because the prophet had told him not to he coulden't and wouldn't. Finally, she in faith and desperate need went to her room and poured out her soul to God. "What is it O Lord? How can I help my beloved?" And the Lord saw fit to give her a wonderful manifestation, for she saw and heard unspeakable things. She returned to her husband, her face aglow, and said, "Heber, what you kept from me the Lord has shown to me." She covenanted to honor the principle with him. Heber, who had been supplicating the Father at the time as she had, embraced her with comparable joy.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Gazelem, this topic has not only shaken but destroyed my faith in the Mormon church.
It should also have destroyed your faith in the Bible as this is a Biblical principle.
Where is the wiggle room?
I think the fact that the "other way exits" provides much wiggle room. It is much easier to have sexual gratification by having many sexual partners/girlfriends/mistresses than to be plurally married. Obviously sexual gratification, which seems to be the primary antiMormon logic, is not the reason for plural marriage.
Gazelem, this topic has not only shaken but destroyed my faith in the Mormon church.
It should also have destroyed your faith in the Bible as this is a Biblical principle.
Yes it did. Even though the new and improved way conveniently trumped the Law of Sarah.
Where is the wiggle room?
I think the fact that the "other way exits" provides much wiggle room. It is much easier to have sexual gratification by having many sexual partners/girlfriends/mistresses than to be plurally married. Obviously sexual gratification, which seems to be the primary antiMormon logic, is not the reason for plural marriage.
No, I see it from a few other angles.
I remember in the Commandments discussion ("H"?). We taught the investigators that this powerful urge within us men was to encourage us to except the responsibility of wife and family.
Now from a woman's point of view... I imagine what it would feel like to be able to hold your companion only 1 night in seven (or if I were fussy, snore, past my prime, real fat or pregnant - 1 in 39). I'm speaking of the companionship, and not necessarily the physical intimacy. The lonelyness. The need for a back rub after a long day at 7 months pregnant. Someone to talk to or just be with at the end of the day or at daybreak. I imagine some women would do nearly anything to get a little attention just to have their husband all to themselves for a few short moments.
Along the same line, I remember the attending that my wife needed when she was pregnant or even nursing our children. Pretty cold blooded to spend the evenings in the next room. What kind of thoughts go through ones head when you hear the headboard in another room banging against the wall.
The curse, I figure, was that true and sacred intimacy was an eternal principle they were wholy unaware of.
Gazelem, this topic has not only shaken but destroyed my faith in the Mormon church.
It should also have destroyed your faith in the Bible as this is a Biblical principle.
No its not. Polygamy was never a command from God to Israel, and it was never 'a Biblical principle'. It was allowed for in certain circumstances (just as divorce was), but the Law of Moses put such restrictions on it that it was practically impossible to carry out. Not only that, but it is ruled out under the new covenant in Christ. The Old Testament consistently describes polygamy very negatively.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|