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

[_truth dancer]

Hi Charity,

What I posted is from the journals of the women involved. You anti's seem to want to ignore what the actual experience was of these women and tell them how they should have felt.

Where do you get this from?

Charity, please understand the argument.

Over and over I, and others have expressed the belief that if women and men want to engage in whatever form of alternative partnering they want, it is fine. I'm pretty sure there are few here who argue with this. There are women who enjoy the harem lifestyle, just as there are men who do not like the idea of emotional connection with a woman.

No one is arguing this.

The argument is... did the God of the universe set up a practice that is similar to primitive animals, (where males are sperm donars, and femals form community, and where men have multiple partners but women are not allowed to do so), OR did the God of all infinity create a system of life in the human that brings forth intimacy, care, compassion, love, depth of emotion, balance, harmony, etc. etc. etc.

YES.. there are women who like men who sleep around. Yes, there are all sorts of unusual, strange, and odd forms of mating and partnering. No question about it. We all get this.

Of course, not every experience was positive. I suppose you want to eliminate monogamous marriage, too, because there are failures.

Again Charity, it is not about what form of partnering folks enjoy. (Although it is horrific to think God would command a practice that is so cruel and dispicable to those who do not think it is holy, healthy, loving, or in the best interest of children, family and life).

We are talking about GOD commanding a practice that seems (for most), cruel, hurtful, against nature, primitive, animalistic, and damaging to women, to families, to children, to men, to community, and to the furthering of life, depth, intimacy, harmony, and love.

I really do think that dancer's "evolved" humanity is really de-volved. Plural marriage isn't about extra sexual partners. Plural marriage is about pure love.

Pure love? You have got to be kidding me?

It had NOTHING to do with love. NOTHING. It was about spreading seed, building the church, male power and glory in the next life. Read up on Joseph Smith here. Read the words of BY. Think Abraham's blessings. Nothing about love, about care, about intimacy. Nothing about loving women, emotional connections, depth of being. Nothing.

Actually Liz, I think this is why the idea is problematic for you.

You see marriage about love and emotional connection, about sharing life, unity, bonding as a husband/wife/family, etc., and it is clear that harems/polygamy are about something totally different. It is a very different system of existence, one that virtually eliminates the love and emotional intimacy (among other forms of intimacy.. ;-) ) and bonding of a man and a woman. In polygamy, women bond, (ideally), men become sperm donors, visitors, a virtual stranger in many cases.

~dancer~

*One little note... even in species that do have a harem form of mating, females actually are not faithful to the alpha male. Seems the rule that women must be faithful to one male is actually only in the human form of harems where men basically own/possess/control women. In other words, even animals have it better! ;-)

[_Trevor]

I don't have a problem with the confirmation of unpleasant facts. TD has done that throughout the thread. You are welcome to do the same, and I encourage it. Just keep the personal barbs in check. That's all I ask.

Personal barbs? Against whom? Joseph Smith? I'm confused.

[_Yoda]

Actually Liz, I think this is why the idea is problematic for you.

You see marriage about love and emotional connection, about sharing life, unity, bonding as a husband/wife/family, etc., and it is clear that harems/polygamy are about something totally different. It is a very different system of existence, one that virtually eliminates the love and emotional intimacy (among other forms of intimacy.. ;-) ) and bonding of a man and a woman. In polygamy, women bond, (ideally), men become sperm donors, visitors, a virtual stranger in many cases.

I do. And, the idea of plural marriage in the eternities does not even mesh well with what is taught about intimacy and bonding between husband and wife in the Church today.

I understand that culture was different in times past. I even understand that from a practical standpoint, polygamy may have worked well for some women. But Charity, even in the journals of women who expressed a gratitude for polygamy, these same women spoke about the husband being a virtual stranger. The bonding happened with other women..the "sister wives"...not with the husband.

Well, when I married my husband, I married HIM. I don't want to be married to "sister wives". I want to form an eternal partnership with HIM....solve problems with HIM....face DAY TO DAY experiences with HIM...for better or for worse.

That feels right. It feels holy. It feels godly.

Don't you think there is even a possibility that this principle could have been misunderstood? That Joseph Smith and Brigham Young got it wrong?

I'm not suggesting that plural families that are already sealed be broken apart. I'm suggesting that we don't know everything, and that what is currently out there may not be correct.

[_Yoda]

I don't have a problem with the confirmation of unpleasant facts. TD has done that throughout the thread. You are welcome to do the same, and I encourage it. Just keep the personal barbs in check. That's all I ask.

Personal barbs? Against whom? Joseph Smith? I'm confused.

Sorry, Trev...I didn't have my glasses on this morning. LOL I thought your comment was Inconceivable's. He had thrown a couple of personal barbs at Charity. That's what I was addressing with that comment. My bad. ;)

I didn't have a problem with you pointing out that Joseph Smith approached young girls. I suppose when I initially read your comment, it just struck me as a little crass in wording for the Celestial Forum.

I could have been too sensitive about it when I read it. I actually wouldn't have had a problem with the comment being made as is in either of the other forums. You notice that I didn't delete it...just gave a suggestion that wording might contain a little more decorum.

[_charity]

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.

liz and truth dancer, you are both looking at the subject from a from a very wordly point of view. Can you love only one child? Does loving a second child take away from your ability to love the first one? And when you spend time with the second child, are you cheating the first out of your attention?

And there is a basic difference between men and women in propagating. It doesn't take 7 husbands for a woman to conceive. So, if there are to be plural marriages it will only be a situation where there is one husbnad and plural wives.

And let me ask each of you, again, if you knew a woman were to be denied a husband and children because there were no men not already married, would you condemn her to eternal loneliness because you wanted your husband all to yourself?

[_Trevor]

Sorry, Trev...I didn't have my glasses on this morning. LOL I thought your comment was Inconceivable's. He had thrown a couple of personal barbs at Charity. That's what I was addressing with that comment. My bad. ;)

I didn't have a problem with you pointing out that Joseph Smith approached young girls. I suppose when I initially read your comment, it just struck me as a little crass in wording for the Celestial Forum.

I could have been too sensitive about it when I read it. I actually wouldn't have had a problem with the comment being made as is in either of the other forums. You notice that I didn't delete it...just gave a suggestion that wording might contain a little more decorum.

That's OK. Charity mistook me for Scratch in the Terrestrial World.

Hey, I didn't know you had a special deal with charity to treat the subject with kid gloves. It was my responsibility to read the thread before jumping in. My apologies.

My comment was crass, even though it did not employ vulgar words per se. Its tone was crass. My bad.

[_Jason Bourne]

It is my understanding that in order to be a God, one has to show that they are willing to make and keep promises. Call them Covenants, or Ordinances, whatever. It is impossible to worship a God who is incapable of keeping a promise.

A basic covenant in the Church is in Baptism and the taking on of the Name of Christ. When we live up to that name, we receive the blessings associated with it.

A further covenant we make, the highest we can make in fact, is the marriage covenant. A righteous priesthood holder, who honors his priesthood and emulates his Savior, takes a woman who is to be his eternal companion and places his name upon her, as he himself has taken upon the name of the Savior. Together this couple emulates God in creating life and places their name upon their children and strives to also emulate their God in teaching and loving and striving to perfect their offspring to be all that they can be and to fulfill the measure of their creation.

This relationship is a relationship bound together in a consecrated purpose. They are dedicating their lives to their God, and in the process going through the school of higher learning, not only in dedicating their individual lives, but their family as well. Working together as a unit they seek to make heaven on earth.

As in all other parts of the gospel, the blessings associated with this principle are added upon the heads of those that are faithful. Polygamy is an expansion of that relationship of consecrated purpose. Children born to such parents are ensured an opportunity to be born into this world brought up in the teachings of Christ, into a loving family that honors its promises and covenants.

You can only conclude this based on LDS scripture and revelation and commentary about the Bible, things that have the LDS spin. New Testament EV Christians believe that the only covenant one must make is to offer ones heart to Jesus and make him Lord of your life. They believe the New Testament does away with Old Testament covenants, ordinances and rites. LDS believe that GOd restored some of these sure. But you still lack evidence that God required polygamy in the Old Testament. The Old Testament does not have anything like what you say above-and expansion of the highest covenant of marriage. Face it Gaz, the most likely reason you do not find polygamy repugnant is because 19th century Mormons did it and you are trying to justify it. But you cannot do it based on the Old Testament.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Evidence that God commanded this in the Old Testament and required it for exaltation please.

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.

Your opinion. That is nice.

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.

I have read a lot about Mormon polygamy and never hear this listed as an advantage. Can you point me in the direction of something to read on this?

Being married instead of single was a huge benefit to women.

And they had to do polygamy to be married? I think not.

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.

Holy smokes!! I have never heard this as reason to justify polygamy. I thought is purpose was to raise up seed not diminish it.

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

Or gain depending on your perspective.

[_charity]

I really do not know how that is going to be. If there are women who need husbands, I would not want to be so selfish as to deny them an eternal existence in the celestial kingdom because I was not willing to share my husband.

Why would you feel that this would fall on your head? Why would a just and loving God allow something like that to happen?

We must all take responsibility and not "let the other person do it." The "not in my neighborhood" argument always gets to me.

What about men who can't get to the CK without a wife? Should the situation be allowed in reverse?

Hey, if there are single men, they will be matchedup with single women. Nice solution, huh?

What about a woman who has a first husband who dies? Suppose she marries someone when she is young. They have no children. She remarries, and has children with the second husband. She can only be sealed to the first. The children currently go to the first husband. How is this right?

The second husband knew what the situation was when he married her. He chose. He could have not dated her from the beginning. He could have found someone who was not sealed already, and married her.

If the situation was reversed, the man would be able to have both wives and the children. If men and women are equal, why could this situation not exist the other way around?

Men and women are equal. They are just different. Men and women are equal, but men still can't bear children. Different. And our genders are eternal.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

What I posted is from the journals of the women involved. You anti's seem to want to ignore what the actual experience was of these women and tell them how they should have felt.

Of course, not every experience was positive. I suppose you want to eliminate monogamous marriage, too, because there are failures.

There are as many if not more sad tales and broken hearts as well.