Jenson says:
Do you think that the polygamy practice will be something that is real in heaven? Many LDS members are at different poles when asked this question? Many women on blog sites don’t think it will be something that they will have to be involved with. Opinions?
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://mormonopenforum.blogsome.com/2005/08/02/eternal-polygamy/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
just look @ D&C 132. any questions?…:)
Comment by toney — August 2, 2005 @ 1:26 am
yeah…where does it say that people who are married to only one person on earth are going to have plural marriages in heaven??
i saw laws regarding polygamy on earth…didn’t see anything add to the end that said, “in perpetuity” or “will add wives in the next life as deemed necessary.”
i think this is one of those things that people like to speculate on, but i don’t think there’s a lot of real hard and fast doctrine on it. sure, if the man had severl marriages/sealings in this life, they will be eternal. but, if he’s only got one, then why would he have more in the next life? and why wouldn’t women have more than one husband? i’m not trying to be flippant, but in all sincerity, why aren’t women afforded the same plural marriage right?
Comment by adrianne — August 2, 2005 @ 4:34 am
A comprehensive commentary on D&C 132 is available here.
Following Adrianne’s line, outside of what is explicitly stated in D&C 132, there is a great deal of speculation on the matter and most of it is not all that great.
When the Lord tells His people to practice plural marriage He says it is to “raise up seed unto me” (cf. Jacob 2:30), otherwise one husband is to have one wife. It is my belief the Lord permitted or encouraged the use of polygyny historically in order to reduce infant mortality (note: I mean very specifically a reduction in infant mortality and not an increase in natality or fertility rates). Historically, child birth was a relatively hazardous activity for women, and infant mortality was commonplace. Now, with modern medicine in indistrialized nations, we enjoy incredibly low mortality rates for both mother and child, to the point where people are shocked when mothers die in childbirth. Anciently, it was just the opposite. Providing more than one mother in a family increased the liklihood that children who survived childbirth would make it to adulthood. When Rachel dies in childbirth with Benjamin (cf. Gen. 35:18), it was one of the other wives of Abraham who ended up taking care of him. Absent that care, Benjamin’s survival odds would have been drastically reduced.
OK, aside from the practical utility of polygyny, D&C 132 is really more about obedience than it is about plural marriage: When the Lord says “Do it” you do it, period. If you dont do what he says, then youre jeopardizing your place in the celestial kingdom. Look at D&C 132:2-14, if you extracted that text from the surrounding text you could apply it to any commandment of the Lord.
Now, the rest of the lore that surrounds the doctrine of plural marriage? Well, I think we’ll have to wait for awhile for an authoritative source, and until then people will speculate.
With respect to Adrianne’s question about why women dont have the same opportunity, the practical reality is if fatherhood isnt plainly established then that causes serious social problems, the consequences of which are obvious. However, anciently, women did have something of a retroactive polyandrous marriage clause protecting them via the levir’s duty, cf. Gen. 38. While Gen. 38 is an example of how the levir’s duty isnt supposed to work, it does show an ancient tradition designed to protect both the deceased husband’s birthright and the widow.
Comment by Kurt — August 2, 2005 @ 10:49 am
I think that when you look at the administration of all the temple ordinances during the life of Joseph, there is pretty strong evidence for monogomous exaltation.
Comment by J. Stapley — August 2, 2005 @ 3:26 pm
It may be convenient and comfortable for us to isolate polygamy in the 19th century, treat it as a mostly irrelevent doctrinal artifact, and chalk up any discussion about what polygamy means for modern Mormons as “speculation,” but I think that’s an oversimplification. The practice of polygamy has been discontinued, but the doctrine of polygamy has never been revoked. D&C 132 is still part of the LDS canon. And some current church practices are still based on polygamous principles.
For example, we all know that if an LDS man is sealed to an LDS woman and the woman passes away, the man can remarry and be sealed to another woman, which essentially means he will have two wives in the next life (regardless of how the first wife feels about the situation). Of course, an LDS woman can only be sealed to one man. If her first husband dies, she can’t be sealed to a 2nd husband unless she goes through the ardous process of anulling her sealing to the first.
In the grand scheme of things, that sure sounds like polygamy to me. We may not be comfortable with polygamy (I know I’m sure as heck not), but treating it as some irrelevent historical curiosity that has no bearing on our lives as modern Mormons simply isn’t accurate.
Comment by Todd — August 2, 2005 @ 4:28 pm
J.Stapley,
Its clear from D&C 132 that singles can enter into the celestial kingdom. Or, are you referring to something else more obscure?
Todd,
I dont think anyone is saying its an “irrelevant historical curiosity”, I know I certainly dont view it that way. My point is that outside of what the Scriptures say on the subject and what Church policy dictates on it, there is a large body of speculation that is unruly and open to comment by anyone coming from any point of view. So, when someone like Jenson asks questions about the esoterica of polygamy, who is going to be able to say anything authoritative? Nobody. We can all sit around and speculate though, and there isnt anything stopping anyone from doing so.
Comment by Kurt — August 2, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
Kurt,
Sorry, I certainly didn’t mean to misrepresent your comments.
I agree completely that there is a lot of unruly and unauthoritative speculation surrounding polygamy. I think that much of the speculation comes from peoples’ needs to justify and come to terms with polygamy in their own minds.
Since, as you said, there are so few modern authoritative statements from church leaders about polygamy, people are sort of left to come up with their own explanations in order to make polygamy “work” for them in a modern Mormon context.
The point I was trying to make in my previous post was that many members of the church I’ve spoken with take the approach that polygamy is a quaint historical artifact that has no real bearing on the modern church. It’s almost an “if we just ignore it, maybe it will go away” mentality, but I don’t necessarily think that approach is realistic or healthy (although it also seems to be the approach the institutional church is taking these days).
Comment by Todd — August 2, 2005 @ 5:43 pm
Todd,
Yes, to be sure, a lot of people have the “out of sight, out of mind” view towards things that are problematic or unpalatable. And that goes for all sorts of people on all kinds of subjects.
Aside from that, the history of the polygamy in the Church is a nettlesome topic. The most comprehensive and least biased (which is not to say it is unbiased, because it is definitely not an unbiased dry and analytical treatment of the historical facts) discussion of the topic is Todd Compton’s _In Sacred Lonliness_. I think that if someone did a completely comprehensive, dry, analytic review of all of the evidence dealing with Smith’s wives and then laid it all out, that would do a lot to end some of the silly speculation and idiotic accusations (yes, I consider the whole Fanny Alger thing idiotic given the paucity of evidence) and make the entire thing much more palatable to the mainstream LDS audience. I think a lot of people just dont want to deal with it, because its messy stuff. If someone would cut through the mess and present just the facts, then it would make things a lot easier to discuss.
Comment by Kurt — August 2, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
To stick with church published materials, I’ll cite the Millenial Star (vol. 9 pg. 23-24):
Comment by J. Stapley — August 2, 2005 @ 7:04 pm
adrianne (my ’sister’), u r correct in that D&C132 does not state that a monogamous marriage here will mean a polyganous marriage (pm) there.
in fact imo, the reverse is so; if since ~1843 u do not practice or believe in pm, u will not practice it in the heavens, which means u cannot advance in the celestial kingdom, (not that u wont be in the lower levels of the ck).
(for this post, i’m resticting my comments to christians only, after july 12, 1843)
since there appears to be more females than males (simple biology, xx & xy, y more fragile) and more rightous females than males (one reason, the war in heaven), it stands to reason there will be wives added. (pm has always been practiced in the heavens, and always will be.)
in regards to another Q u asked,
“and why wouldn’t women have more than one husband?” imo one of the reasons (and there are several) is not being able to determine who the father is of a paticular child (esp a female if the father(s) have recessive genes). ur first response to me i think would be, “well we have testing available now.” that is true for now, but in just a few short years, the hospitals, doctors’ offices etc will be dormant and many in shambles because of the coming “end of the world”, as described in Matt. 24.
and to be as consistant as our Heavenly Father is, “as above, so below”.
regards
Comment by toney — August 3, 2005 @ 5:50 pm
Oh yes, according to the prophets from Joseph Smith to Heber Grant, if you dont embrace polygamy (the great and everlasting covenant) then you cant be a god or godess. But dont take my word for it. Look it up in the un-modified versions of the JofD and other forms of church history. Reality according to the Church is women are spirit children factory’s for time and all eternity, subject to their one and only God/Husband. Worlds without number also means wifes without number.
The early prophets have spewed a ton of information on this one.
Comment by matthew webster — October 26, 2005 @ 10:08 pm
Of course, an LDS woman can only be sealed to one man. If her first husband dies, she can’t be sealed to a 2nd husband unless she goes through the ardous process of anulling her sealing to the first.
That isn’t true. I’ve known women who were sealed to more than one man. Not “known of” — I’ve actually met and talked with them.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — September 16, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
Stephen M,
Interresting resurection of the thread. Thanks for the enlightenment. So was there a time our church banned eternal polyandry? I know if I passed before my wife, I’d want her to remarry, because I want her to be happy, and we just weren’t meant to be alone. And I certainly wouldn’t want her to be forced into the awful situation of some eternal choosing between me and hubby #2.
Comment by Steve EM — September 19, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
‘”The only men who become Gods . . . are those who enter into polygamy.” (B. Young, J of D, vol. 11, p. 269)
“I bear my solemn testimony that plural marriage is as true as any principle that has been revealed from the heavens. I bear my testimony that it is a necessity, and that the Church of Christ in its fullness never existed without it. Where you have the eternity of marriage you are bound to have plural marriage; bound to and it is one of the marks of the Church of Jesus Christ in its sealing ordinances.” (G. Teasdale, J of D, vol. 25, p. 21)
So yes polygamy is essential and for those who do not practice it?
“. . . he that abideth not this law (polygamy) can in no wise enter into my glory, but shall be d**ned, saith the Lord.” (D & C, 132:27)
‘”The Lord has said, that those who reject this principle (polygamy) reject their salvation, they shall be d**ned, saith the Lord . . . they will finally go down to hell and be damned if they do not repent.” (0. Pratt, J of D, vol. 17, pp. 224-225)
There’s many quotes available on our site.
zoecircle.proboards91.com
We welcome lds questions and responces on the board. Hope you’ll visit.
Comment by DC — December 12, 2006 @ 2:22 pm