Plural Families

[_Inconceivable]

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.

Not really, "prophets" actually did give wives (and concubines) to themselves and others. The assumption is made that these relationships were sanctioned and blessed by Jehovah.

Joseph was unfaithful to his wife. He started this business long before telling (revealing) it to her. And even then, he proved to her that he was a pathological liar. Sadly, Emma, in some ways reminds me of Hillary.

It redefines his statements: "deep waters are what I am want to tread" and "I knew it, and God knew it.. and though I was persecuted for it .. I would not deny it.."

[_Fortigurn]

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.

Not really, "prophets" actually did give wives (and concubines) to themselves and others. The assumption is made that these relationships were sanctioned and blessed by Jehovah.

I have highlighted the important word here. I'm not convinced that 'Not really' is an adequate response to the points I made.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Well that is the way it is. See we believe in a patriarchy. Men run the patriarchy. I do not mean this in a snotty way at all. It is just a fact. So in this situation men get all the kids and all the wives in heaven. The woman is with her first guy and all her children are as well. Even if hubby number two sired them. I think though in your example, wife can ask to have her first sealing cancelled and be sealed to the second man instead, but then poor first husband has to find another wife in the eternities.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

I gotta be honest with ya Gaz. I have heard Madsen's talk-Power From the Abrahamic Tests. Used to love the talk. But think about it rationally. Why would God try anyone in such a cruel way? Abraham, Joseph, Heber? Is such a test moral? Would you test your children in such a way to make sure they love you and will obey you? So they could learn something about themselves? Their own heart? And keep in mind the God who supposedly tests us this way is a bit elusive. We don't see him at all. He appears to only a few and then we need to go on faith that that person really saw this God and spoke to him. And then he is delivering the test. Rationally this is ludicrous. You would not try or test one of your children like this. It seems hideous. Rationally it makes no sense at all.

[_Yoda]

I gotta be honest with ya Gaz. I have heard Madsen's talk-Power From the Abrahamic Tests. Used to love the talk. But think about it rationally. Why would God try anyone in such a cruel way? Abraham, Joseph, Heber? Is such a test moral? Would you test your children in such a way to make sure they love you and will obey you? So they could learn something about themselves? Their own heart? And keep in mind the God who supposedly tests us this way is a bit elusive. We don't see him at all. He appears to only a few and then we need to go on faith that that person really saw this God and spoke to him. And then he is delivering the test. Rationally this is ludicrous. You would not try or test one of your children like this. It seems hideous. Rationally it makes no sense at all.

You and I are on the same wavelength, Jason. As a parent, especially, these are some of the things I've struggled with trying to understand as well.

[_Yoda]

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.

So the "higher order of things" is a man's world, and women and children are gifts given to him based upon his righteousness.

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.

So why did God bother to give women brains, talents, leadership abilities, etc. if all they were suppose to do is be a "pretty little wife" and birth babies for eternity?

What happened to the idea of marriage being a partnership?

I can tell you this. I do not want any part of a "heaven", "celestial kingdom", etc. where I'm numbered among a hundred other wives, and my only goal in life is to wait for my husband to implant me with more seed. Do you know how ludicrous that sounds? It definitely sounds more like hell than heaven.

And, yes, I know that every TBM is going to jump on the bandwagon here, and say "Well, honey, don't worry...with that kind of attitude, you won't make it to the CK anyway."

Save your breath.

What I"m suggesting is that maybe...just maybe...there is more here than meets the eye, and we don't have all of the answers.....and just maybe...since our early Church leaders are also human...they may not have interpreted things correctly.

[_bcspace]

there is more here than meets the eye

Indeed. For example, there is no indication at all that women will be standing in stalls while men stand at stud, constantly mating and squeezing out children as is the strawman vision created by such statements as..."if all they were suppose to do is be a "pretty little wife" and birth babies for eternity?" (Liz dressed it up a bit). That is the vision of the eternities antiMormons intend to create, but it does not seem to match the vision actually taught in the LDS Church.

Femminism raises it's ugly head here too as such always seem to be threatened by the concept of a family with a male head of household. In this regard, the femminist is not unlike those who propose/encourage/justify sexual promiscuity. They unreasonably fear to loose what they don't use in profligate fashion.

[_Mary]

bc space....you don't half spew some rubbish sometimes.

My goodness I am SO glad I DIDN'T marry a Mormon man. Your attitude sucks...

In my opinion of course!

[MODERATOR NOTE: Disagreeing is perfectly fine, but in the Celestial Forum, please disagree only in a truly Celestial fashion. Specifically, "your attitude sucks" would be a blanket statement best avoided here.

Thank you!]

[_Who Knows]

Indeed. For example, there is no indication at all that women will be standing in stalls while men stand at stud, constantly mating and squeezing out children as is the strawman vision created by such statements as..."if all they were suppose to do is be a "pretty little wife" and birth babies for eternity?" (Liz dressed it up a bit). That is the vision of the eternities antiMormons intend to create, but it does not seem to match the vision actually taught in the LDS Church.

Umm, actually, this is the vision that one of your TBM's here is creating.

[_gramps]

there is more here than meets the eye

Indeed. For example, there is no indication at all that women will be standing in stalls while men stand at stud, constantly mating and squeezing out children as is the strawman vision created by such statements as..."if all they were suppose to do is be a "pretty little wife" and birth babies for eternity?" (Liz dressed it up a bit). That is the vision of the eternities antiMormons intend to create, but it does not seem to match the vision actually taught in the LDS Church.

Femminism raises it's ugly head here too as such always seem to be threatened by the concept of a family with a male head of household. In this regard, the femminist is not unlike those who propose/encourage/justify sexual promiscuity. They unreasonably fear to loose what they don't use in profligate fashion.

So, what is the vision from the Mormon point of view. I, personally, have not read much about what is going to be going on up there. Where did you get the information and please share it with us.

And, yeah, you might want to share it with Gaz. His view doesn't seem too different from the anti-mormon view, really.