Polygamy---Commanded by God in the Old Testament or Tolerated?

[_Yoda]

Hey Gaz...

You completely missed Liz's point.

The problem as I see it for her, (correct me if I'm wrong here Liz), is that while a MAN can have multiple wives and love many women.... a WOMAN is left with one man.

This is the problem.

She is asking YOU to imagine what it would be like if YOU were told you had to share your wife with a dozen or so men.. say the stk high council guys.

You get to see her, say a couple of times a month, sleep with her when it is your turn, rotating between the various leaders, and have virtually NO emotional, spiritual, physical or intimate connection with her. Yes, an occassional hug here or there... a kiss now and then, once in a while she may chose to hold your hand or sit with you at church, but gone is the tenderness, the love, the passion, the togetherness, the balance, and the communion.

The argument that we can love more than one person is completely irrelevant.

You speak of promises.... how about the commandment to do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

To me this FAR and AWAY takes priority over everything else various men think God commands.

The day a man honestly tells me he is happy and thrilled with his wife sleeping with the stk High Council men, believes it is truly what he wants, is the day I will acknowledge that that particular man believes in the teaachings of Christ.

It is not enough to say, I would obey God... this is NOT what the golden rule states. It says to treat others as you would like to be treated. VERY CLEAR.

If YOU would like YOUR wife to sleep with a bunch of other men, then go for it.

But for any man to say having a harem/having multiple women is GOD's will when it clearly, utterly, absolutely goes against one of the most holy of all teachings just tells me he is not a follower of Jesus, not a disciple of Christ, and has put his fantasies above the teachings of God.

Men can dance around this all day long... Christ was clear.

~dancer~

You are absolutely right, Truth Dancer.

I'm sorry, Gaz. I know that you are trying to come at this with a gospel perspective. I specifically asked you to because this is something that, as a member of the Church, I have not, and will not, be able to come to terms with.

I suppose in the end, there are simply no easy answers. I had this conversation with Dadof7 on FAIR/MAD about 18 months ago. He spoke very candidly about his Abrahamic trial that he had to endure. His wife was extremely ill and was not expected to live. They have seven children. She made him promise her that if she died, he would remarry. The thought absolutely tore him up inside.

By the grace of God, she is still alive. She made a full recovery. But the experience did make him seriously contemplate the ramifications of plural marriage, etc.

My point is this. If your marriage is good...if you REALLY are developing the kind of connection that the gospel teaches you SHOULD develop with your spouse, how do you share that? It's a partnership.

And, if we are all equal...if woman really isn't below the man, but is beside him...than why...under unusual circumstances of death and second marriages, can't a woman also be sealed to more than one man?

That type of love capacity exists for both males and females.

The only way I have been able to resolve this at all is to simply "shelve it" and resign myself to the fact that if there is indeed a loving God...there is A LOT about the next life that we do not know, and will be resolved at that time.

However, resigning myself to that fact also means resigning myself to the fact that the gospel regarding marriage and plural marriage, as it is currently taught in the Church, is wrong.

[_Inconceivable]

Hey Gaz...

You completely missed Liz's point.

The problem as I see it for her, (correct me if I'm wrong here Liz), is that while a MAN can have multiple wives and love many women.... a WOMAN is left with one man.


~dancer~

It occurs to me..

Polygamy is another way of making the statement that women haven't the capacity to love and express intimacy as a man can. No doubt, by 30 fold in some cases (I'm refering to Brigham Young among others).

Men, by their Godly nature are much more kind, affectionate, loving, patient, self disciplined and focussed. Therefore their ability to compartmentalize and even increase intimate and loving relationships (compared to a woman) is evident.

Women are just capable of having a single connection with a helpmeet. No more. Not even two. With few exceptions, a woman cannot develop the charity and discipline necessary to manage intimate affairs as a man, by his very nature, is so easily capable of.

nuts.

[_Yoda]

Hey Gaz...

You completely missed Liz's point.

The problem as I see it for her, (correct me if I'm wrong here Liz), is that while a MAN can have multiple wives and love many women.... a WOMAN is left with one man.


~dancer~

It occurs to me..

Polygamy is another way of making the statement that women haven't the capacity to love and express intimacy as a man can. No doubt, by 30 fold in some cases (I'm refering to Brigham Young among others).

Men, by their Godly nature are much more kind, affectionate, loving, patient, self disciplined and focussed. Therefore their ability to compartmentalize and even increase intimate and loving relationships (compared to a woman) is evident.

Women are just capable of having a single connection with a helpmeet. No more. Not even two. With few exceptions, a woman cannot develop the charity and discipline necessary to manage intimate affairs as a man, by his very nature, is so easily capable of.

nuts.

Thank you, Inconceivable! I also find it ironic that women are held up on this pedestal of supposedly being "more righteous than men" because of our nurturing capacity, etc....and yet WE are the ones who don't have the capacity for multiple intimate relationships, but men are?

Nuts, indeed!

[Guest]

Thank you, Inconceivable! I also find it ironic that women are held up on this pedestal of supposedly being "more righteous than men" because of our nurturing capacity, etc....and yet WE are the ones who don't have the capacity for multiple intimate relationships, but men are?

Nuts, indeed!

If I were to choose the gender that has the greater capacity for intimacy, loyalty and many other graceful attributes (without being clouded by the pull of physical gratification), it would be the woman.

Consider the miriad of porn sites. Who is their market and why? Look at the different natures between a man and a woman. A lot can be concluded by seeing a successful marketing campaign.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Liz...

The only way I have been able to resolve this at all is to simply "shelve it" and resign myself to the fact that if there is indeed a loving God...there is A LOT about the next life that we do not know, and will be resolved at that time.

Yeah, I did this for a long time. (Sigh).

The thing I came to realize is that "shelving it" really meant I don't want to think about it. Which was fine. It was hard to face reality. Easier to not think about.

The reality is, however, the LDS teachings/doctrine are CLEAR. There is no dispute. Joseph Smith claimed revelation concerning marriage, polygamy, and the CKHL, as did many other prophets who claim to speak with Christ. The scriptures are clear. The practice is clear.

In other words, the idea that we can wait and see how it really is, or God will work it all out, or whatever is not really valid because the LDS doctrine (as described by leaders, through revelations, and in scriptures), is clear.

I suppose one could go with the argument that women will be much different in the next life and not care about their husbands, or not want a realtionship with them, or not care about intimacy, or will revert to animals who just want a sperm (or whatever), now and then... or something along these lines. But the CKHL is what it is.... polygamy.

I'm not trying to be harsh or criticial at all... I'm just saying, it is not as if there is more to the story. The teachings are very clear.

Men in the CKHL have harems.

Now there may be some debate if it is actually a requirement although I think it is VERY CLEAR that it is based on LDS scripture and teachings. And folks can quibble over how many women each man gets etc. etc.

Regardless... in the CKHL, men with multiple women is a reality. Women share a man. Men have harems.

Plain and simple.

:-(

~dancer~

[_charity]

This might be of interest to you in this thread.

http://www.christianpolygamy.com/

To give you a summary, if you don't want to check out the link. There are modern Christians who believe in polygamy. The advice given on this link is to marry a wife, divorce her civily, marry another, divorce her civily, marry another. . . . As long as the wife is not given a bill of divorcement as described in the Bible, they are still married in the eys of God So, voila. Polygamy.

Now to the topic. I believe polygamy is commanded of God at His will. It is incomprehensible to me that a prophet of God would make such a decision on his own, Abraham, Moses, David was given wives by Nathan the propeht. Etc.

And about how could plural marraige succeed. I think the reason God gives the command at some times and not others depend on the circumstances of the time.

In the pioneer era there were great advantages to women. You should read about the distribution of wealth in Utah and ways in which women in plural marraiges benefitted. Being married instead of single was a huge benefit to women. But plural marriage was a form of birth control, too. Numbers of children per woman was less in a plural marraige. And having babies was a lot scarier then than today. A family (husband + wives +children) in those times was better off with the larger numbers. Many more women in plural marriages were able to train and have careers with built in in-home day care. Where husbands were off and gone a lot, sister-wives had each other for support and company.

Of course, this all depended on people being nice to each other. Some weren't. Their loss.

[_charity]

The reality is, however, the LDS teachings/doctrine are CLEAR. There is no dispute. Joseph Smith claimed revelation concerning marriage, polygamy, and the CKHL, as did many other prophets who claim to speak with Christ. The scriptures are clear. The practice is clear.

In other words, the idea that we can wait and see how it really is, or God will work it all out, or whatever is not really valid because the LDS doctrine (as described by leaders, through revelations, and in scriptures), is clear.

I suppose one could go with the argument that women will be much different in the next life and not care about their husbands, or not want a realtionship with them, or not care about intimacy, or will revert to animals who just want a sperm (or whatever), now and then... or something along these lines. But the CKHL is what it is.... polygamy.

We will all be different, dancer. We won't be jealous, we won't be possessive. We will be loving in a degree that we can't understand now.

Just a small story. There is an account given of a woman in the Nauvoo Temple. She sees another woman sitting in the corner, crying. She goes over and asks her what is the wrong. The woman is single, alone, no father or brothers to support her. The mobs were threatening, and the Saints knew they were going to go West. A woman alone was in a desperate circumstance. The woman was so moved with compassion on the desperate circumstance of this sister, that she offered to let her marry her husband.

Can you imagine the love involved there?

I'm not trying to be harsh or criticial at all... I'm just saying, it is not as if there is more to the story. The teachings are very clear.

Men in the CKHL have harems.

You have been unduly influenced by the Victorian era writings where harems were essentially pleasure palaces for men. Countless women only valuable as sexual partners. That is Satan's version of plual marriage.

In God's version, women are not only valued but essential partners. Think about the eternal marriage covenant. What are the promises to women?

Regardless... in the CKHL, men with multiple women is a reality. Women share a man. Men have harems.

You are only half right. A man may have plural wives, but he doesn't have a harem.

:-(

~dancer~

You don't have to be sad. Anymore than you have to be sad about having babies. No pain. No sleepless nights. No morning sick. All the good, none of the bad. Same with marriage.

[Guest]

In the pioneer era there were great advantages to women. You should read about the distribution of wealth in Utah and ways in which women in plural marraiges benefitted. Being married instead of single was a huge benefit to women. But plural marriage was a form of birth control, too. Numbers of children per woman was less in a plural marraige. And having babies was a lot scarier then than today. A family (husband + wives +children) in those times was better off with the larger numbers. Many more women in plural marriages were able to train and have careers with built in in-home day care. Where husbands were off and gone a lot, sister-wives had each other for support and company.

Charity,

You haven't a friggin clue. I cannot believe you have the foggiest notion of what you think you are talking about.

Each of your ridiculous points are diametrically contrary to history. There is no documentation to demonstrate a trend toward any of your conjecture.

You can't prove it because the proof does not exist.

If I demonstrate valid documentation to the contrary you will simply cease commenting and attack something else you are whofully ignorant about.

[_Trevor]

Just a small story. There is an account given of a woman in the Nauvoo Temple. She sees another woman sitting in the corner, crying. She goes over and asks her what is the wrong. The woman is single, alone, no father or brothers to support her. The mobs were threatening, and the Saints knew they were going to go West. A woman alone was in a desperate circumstance. The woman was so moved with compassion on the desperate circumstance of this sister, that she offered to let her marry her husband.

Can you imagine the love involved there?

Here's another small story for ya. Joseph Smith sees a 16 year old friend of Emma working in his house regularly. He sidles up to her, proposes an illicit affair, and gets down to business. Can you tell me how much love was involved there?

(Moderator Note)
Hey, Trev...this comment was rather snide for the Celestial Forum. Do me a favor and let's keep things on the up and up, OK? Thanks! Liz

[_truth dancer]

We will all be different, dancer. We won't be jealous, we won't be possessive. We will be loving in a degree that we can't understand now.

I'm thinking you are one of those who thinks they know all about the CKHL. OK, Charity. ;-)

Sorry but the idea of claiming that horrific things are actually wonderful, and we will change our hearts to believe horrific things are really great, just doesn't quite work for me! :-) The twisting and contorting that goes along with this makes me dizzy.

My belief about polygamy has nothing to do with jealousy, possessiveness, or anything of this sort. It has to do with evolved humankind, with the development of emotional intimacy, with the harmony and balance of life, with the depth of connection and unity emerging in our universe, etc. etc. etc.

Polygamy is not bringing forth more wonderful and magnificent aspects of what is possible. It is a reversion to a very animalistic form of mating... one that is clearly maladaptive for our species. One that is counterproductive to life, to the survival of children, and to the well being of adults. But as I said, even beyond this, it is completely at odds with how our universe works, IMHO.

Just a small story. There is an account given of a woman in the Nauvoo Temple. She sees another woman sitting in the corner, crying. She goes over and asks her what is the wrong. The woman is single, alone, no father or brothers to support her. The mobs were threatening, and the Saints knew they were going to go West. A woman alone was in a desperate circumstance. The woman was so moved with compassion on the desperate circumstance of this sister, that she offered to let her marry her husband.

Sorry, but again, I think any God that would create such a system is cruel. (I'm being nice here).

Ohh the world is filled with stories justifying horrible things, trying to convince folks that cruelty is actually good, and claiming what is horrific is of God. I don't buy it.

I do not think a heavenly system where women must share a husband, and where a man has multiple partners is holy or kind or loving. It is primitive, animalistic and totally against the harmony and balance of our universe. Now, if women had multiple partners as well, that would be a different story.

If folks want to engage in any form of alternative mating/partnering, fine. If it makes people happy to have multiple partners, sleep around, share whatever, I truly do not care. But please don't tell me the harem system is of Divine origin.

I have observed some clear patterns in women who think living in a harem is a good thing. These women will be a great match for those men who are into sperm donation but who don't care for a relationship with women.

:-)

~dancer~