197 Comments

1. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I’m glad I stumbled onto them.

   I’ve thought a lot about the whole polygamy in heaven thing, and I don’t like it either. Of all the things that make perfect sense in the gospel, this isn’t one of them. Frankly, if that’s the way it is MUST be, I’ll just forgo exaltation, thanks.

   I’ll be checking back to see if anyone has a better imagination than you do.

   Comment by Mary Ann — October 21, 2005 @ 4:44 am

2. Nope. I think your imagination wins, hands down.

   Comment by LisaB — October 21, 2005 @ 6:16 am

3. Just sort of a Devil’s Advocate or whatnot, really just mussing out loud… just something I thought about while reading.

   You talked about giving your soul to your man completely, but your man would have to give his soul to four seperate women. Wouldn’t an “Ideal Polygymist Marriage” be one where everyone gave their soul to everyone? Instead of only sharing everything with just your husband, you share it with your Sister Wives as well. Not neccessarily physically, you know, I’m not trying to be a perv or anything, but intellectually,emotionally, and all of those intangible ways that make a relationship more then ‘just sex’. I dunno.

   OK, I’ll duck and cover now.

   Comment by The Gooch — October 21, 2005 @ 7:55 am

4. I can’t understand it either, I try not to think about it. But I have thought that if I died before my husband I wouldn’t mind him getting married again to a nice widow who was already sealed to her first husband, but I don’t like the feeling that i have no control. If I die before my husband he can get sealed without my consent.

   Comment by Noone — October 21, 2005 @ 8:03 am

5. No, it’s a really good question gooch, and one I was thinking as I lay in bed last night winding down from writing that thing.

   On some level, in some wildly unimaginable 8th dimention, the idea of being sealed to sister-wives who are my best friends sounds good to me. I love my best friend dearly, I would love to live with her forever. But the way the current system is set up, even if she were my sister wife, I wouldn’t be sealed to her, she’d be sealed to my husband. So we could spend our lives together, raise our children together, be as close as two people can possibly become, and if our husband suddenly decides that he’s not interested in fatherhood or husbandhood or Mormonhood, we would no longer have our only eternal tie, him.

   It’s just another way that our female relationships are subserviant to and dependent on men. And the whole idea of it sucks.

   Comment by fMhLisa — October 21, 2005 @ 8:06 am

6. “but I don’t like the feeling that i have no control. If I die before my husband he can get sealed without my consent”

   This is the sort of thing that just doesn’t worry me at all. Because this isnt’ the eternity I believe in. I’m willing to be open to millions of possiblities. But not that one.

   Comment by fMhLisa — October 21, 2005 @ 8:13 am

7. It’s just another way that our female relationships are subserviant to and dependent on men. And the whole idea of it sucks.

   Sometimes life sucks. Get used to it.

   Comment by Mango — October 21, 2005 @ 9:21 am

8. Life may suck. But eternal life doesn’t suck, or else we’re all seriously misinformed. Lisa is right. And the whole suckiness of such an unequal, call it telestial arrangement, does not seem compatible with eternal, unadulterated (bad pun?) happiness. Which is why I’ve concluded that eternal polygamy cannot possibly exist, except maybe for a few, unique individuals who don’t mind sharing their spouse or splitting their soul.

   I’ve posted this before, but for those of you who haven’t read it, this is an excellent article about why polygamy doesn’t work on the soul level.

   Comment by Artemis — October 21, 2005 @ 9:38 am

9. Some of the attitudes expressed about this polygomy thing have really shocked me. It has alwas been my understanding that to perfectly live the gospel, we must be able to sacrafice everything. All Im reading about here is about personal gain and selfishness (I’m speaking about emotional gain and emontional selfishness here). These are things that I believe we also must learn to sacrifice. I think they are earthly ideas and emotions that we can learn to leave behind to obtain something higher - I dont know what that is, but I do believe it will be superior in every way. To me getting hung up on polygomy is the same as getting all hung up about paying tithing. In the end its not just all about ‘ME’. Its about ‘US’. Being sealed isnt being tied to just one person for ever. It is being sealed into the family of Adam. Eternal marriage isnt a never ending trip on a cruise ship with your one and only lover, it is providing for eternal expansion and progression. If we arent willing to sacrifice all - or will only sacrafice if its ‘fair’, I dont think we will get far. It is arrogant and selfish to assume it is all about ME.

   Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 9:44 am

10. I love my sister and my best friend and they can have him in the celestial kingdom.

    Comment by annegb — October 21, 2005 @ 9:48 am

11. “Women are not just uteruses to be collected.”

    Nor are men just sperm to be given out.

    Comment by Kim Siever — October 21, 2005 @ 9:54 am

12. It’s when you take polygamy to the Celestial Kingdom, then it becomes really problematic.

    Earthly polygamy can be rationalized and justified in various ways, usually by pointing to the flawed nature of humanity (see my recent half-baked attempts on the polygamy survey thread). But when you hit the Celestial Kingdom, all those rationales fall away and you’re left with the bare religious implications of pure polygamy without all of its unwanted baggage (like Tom Green).

    And it still just doesn’t seem fair!

    One man gets to share the highest form of love with more than one person, but a woman only gets to share this uplifting love with one man.

    Or reverse it: Women are blessed with being able to love completely only one person, but this blessing is denied to men who have to divide themselves among multiple women (the potential drawbacks polygamy has for men is something I rarely hear discussed).

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 21, 2005 @ 9:56 am

13. I’m not sure what I think about the whole polygamy thing. I do know a lot of single women, godly women who can’t find a man because all the “good ones” (and most of the mediocre ones) are taken. I know single guys. I’d never fix them up with my friends, I know them too well. Would I want more than one man? Nah, I’m good with just one, thank you. Can a man have that “marital” relationship with more than one woman? Is it like having six kids, except they are wives? Are there more female spirits than male to account for this apparent disparity? Does everyone get plural spouses, or just a few select men?

    And we are dependent on men for that top tier of the afterlife. But guess what, they are also dependent on us. We have to do it together. We are dependent on Christ for our salvation and we are dependent on our marital relationship to attain the Celestial Kingdom. Once you are sealed, he is incomplete without you, like that annoying puzzle with the corner piece missing. I think this part of “the Plan” is to teach us interdependence, we can’t do it alone. Our families will be like big doilies, with these people sealed (thru their parents) as siblings, and others as spouses, and in-laws, etc. My doily is going to have a huge hole in the middle with all my part-member stuff going on, but it’s an ongoing project.

    Comment by Josette — October 21, 2005 @ 9:56 am

14. One man gets to share the highest form of love with more than one person, but a woman only gets to share this uplifting love with one man.

    Or reverse it: Women are blessed with being able to love completely only one person, but this blessing is denied to men who have to divide themselves among multiple women

    Who ever said this was the highest form of love? Its just what we consider to be the highest with out puny little brains

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 10:03 am

15. Can someone confirm this for me?

    I read somewhere that some of the Quorum of the Twelve during the polygamy era actually made statements that polygamy was necessary for the highest level of exhaltation. That polygamy was an eternal concept and a characteristic of Celestial glory.

    I suppose I really ought to keep track of where I read things. Can anyone help me out here?

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 21, 2005 @ 10:05 am

16. What I find so interesting in these discussions, is how similar the development of these views are for women who have “grown up” in the Church. When I was around ten or so, when I really discovered polygamy and what it meant, I remember going to my room and sobbing… sobbing for hours. Even at that young age, I could not fathom a God who would sanction such a system, especially eternally. I think it was then that I started to notice all the other things in our religion, in our Church, that delegate roles and “rewards” based on gender. And I’ve struggled with it since–becuase it doesn’t seem fair.

    Of course, as you grow up, and search and read and ponder and pray, I think you can begin to justify things in order to stay sane (and a member). The temple (at least, the ordinance part)–reading it as equality for the sexes. Believing that the leaders aren’t perfect (so, for me, that’s secretly believing that polygamy was just a giant mistake and not of God). Hoping for change in the church organization/policies to take advantage of individual’s potential contributions not inhibited by gender-roles.

    I think that Mormonism offers a view of the afterlife that is somewhat comforting, because the premise of that view is that we are still who we are, that there is organization like exists here, that “mansions” are really mansions; basically, that it is familiar. But I’m not sure that’s the case.

    Comment by Kayla — October 21, 2005 @ 10:06 am

17. Mark, I think it’s pretty settled for most Mormons that the highest form of love between two humans is within marriage between man and woman.

    You may disagree of course, but my statement was operating within established convention.

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 21, 2005 @ 10:07 am

18. Seth,

    Yes. That is exactly the problem. Thanks for not letting me drive you off.

    And Mark, I myself have already confronted the ’sacrificing EVERYTHING for God’ question. Frankly, if I hadn’t already stumbled through a portion of that already, I wouldn’t still be a member of this church. But most of us are talking beyond that. Yes, we’re willing to sacrifice everything, even our uniqueness to our spouses, for God if that is what God wants, but many of us believe (well, I believe, anyway) that God simply, probably, does not want eternal polygamy for us for the reasons described above. Read Jacob 2 and how God does not want his daughters to have the kind of heartache and sorrow that accompanies polygamy. Even though he was referencing an earthly practice of it, even ‘perfect’ polygamy would still be unequal and God loves his daughters as much as his sons, even in Heaven. It is not selfish to say that. Rather, it acknowledges and reinforces the truth that every soul is precious to God. It is okay to be concerned about our eternal welfare, and I think equity plays into that welfare.

    Comment by Artemis — October 21, 2005 @ 10:08 am

19. Polygamy has been on the brain the last few days (can’t imagine why…) and an article I had read a couple of weeks ago came to mind.

    It is about a “trio” over in the Netherlands who were all “married” to each other. It wasn’t a marriage, but rather a civil union that is recongnized by the country. But, the article said, other than the name, polygamy has been legalized in the Netherlands.

    There is alot of talk about polygamy in the church, but what if the US actually “legalized” it, either by “marriage” or “civil unions”. Obviously there has been talk about since those who are gay can either be “married” or have a “civil union” in some states.

    In some ways I think this is relevant to fmhLisa’s post because some beleive that the LDS church did away with polygamy to gain statehood. So, if it became “legal” would polygamy have a comeback in the church?

    Just a thought.

    Comment by princessleah_mom — October 21, 2005 @ 10:08 am

20. Seth (#15): You could start with D&C 131.

    Comment by Rosalynde — October 21, 2005 @ 10:18 am

21. Seth,
    I understand what you meant. I just meant that there may - and probably is - something higher that we dont understand fully yet.

    even ‘perfect’ polygamy would still be unequal and God loves his daughters as much as his sons, even in Heaven.

    And I’ve struggled with it since–becuase it doesn’t seem fair.

    To Artemis and Kayla - and most the other women here - It is readily apparent that you women do not believe that eternal polygomy isnt ‘Fair’, but do you really think it is unfair to women? Think about it from the male point of view. It is the male that is getting the short end of the stick in eternal polygomy.

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 10:19 am

22. I’m with you Mary Ann. I’ll also forego exaltation and happily live with like-minded people in the terrestrial kingdom, if polygamy ever becomes a requirement for exaltation.

    Mark, I think you are completely misreading people’s comments. Rejecting polygamy is not all about personal gain or selfishness. It’s about keeping a family intact. It’s about fidelity. It’s about the sanctity of our marriage relationships. It’s about our marriages and our families eternally bonding and becoming more sacred and more united. All of these are good, Godly things. All of these are things we are taught by our prophets and our leaders to strive for.

    For me there’s no sense in a system where we will be required to sacrifice the morals, ideals, and values that the gospel and the Church has been teaching us our whole lives.

    To me the whole idea of polygamy being a test to see if we’ll “sacrifice everything” is horrific. Strikes me far too much like the nauseating Abraham and Isaac story. But there’s one crucial difference. God stopped Abraham from killing his son, but God didn’t stop all these 19th centrury marriages from being ruined. And even more awful is that not only were so many of these marriages terrible, business-like, unfulfilling arrangements, but also that they might exist into eternity. What a frightening and dark prospect.

    Comment by Caroline — October 21, 2005 @ 10:20 am

23. sorry, that should read:
    “you do not believe that eternal polyomy is ‘Fair’ “

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 10:20 am

24. I think Seth articulated the male point of view nicely. Yes, I’m more focused on the female role and point of view, as I am female, but I have thought about the male point of view and I don’t want polygamy for men’s sakes also. If it’s not fair to either women or men, why would God have us live it in Heaven?

    Comment by Artemis — October 21, 2005 @ 10:21 am

25. I never said it was a test. I dont believe that it is.

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 10:22 am

26. Mark, would it trouble you if you died tomorrow, and then, due to a new change in policy and doctrine, your wife was sealed to another husband and then stayed married to him for 40 years or so and bore his children? Would you be happy to greet them all in next world and look forward to an eternity together as a family?

    Comment by anon — October 21, 2005 @ 10:27 am

27. Caroline,
    Let me make sure I understand you. You would gladly “forego exaltation” and give up your family to live in the terrestrial kingdom, rather than potentially share your family?

    Comment by Jeremy — October 21, 2005 @ 10:27 am

28. Difficult question to answer, but if that was how doctrine changed, I would like to think that with 40 years or so to be taught while I was dead I could accept it.

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 10:33 am

29. Mark — If it would take you 40 years of heavenly teaching in order to accept it, why are you “shocked” by the reticence of women here on earth to accept it? Maybe the fear isn’t so “shocking” after all -?

    Comment by anon — October 21, 2005 @ 10:38 am

30. First I love the way you write - I identify with your thought processes as they are so similar to my own on this issue

    The sharing of souls - I had heard somewhere that your soul really isn’t one piece, you give sections of it to everyone you love (Mother, Father, Husbands, Kids etc.) and in return receive a piece of theirs so you’re never incomplete that way. I don’t know…just a thought that I don’t have time to extrapolate on as I want to get to the nitty gritty of your article, the polygamous relationships in the hereafter.

    My Mother always used to say to me and I still ponder on my answers to her question: Would you deny a righteous woman the right to the celestial kingdom? (similar to the sacrifice everything thread mentioned previously, but I always try to view a good friend when I ponder this question)

    I like the earthly vs. celestial distinction: From thinking on my Mothers question over the years, I’ve come to think that maybe celestial polygamy is not for sexual relationships/raising of children or any of that, but solely for the sealing power that allows others to become part of your eternal family, and the blessings that entails. Think of the temple here. So its mostly just a place holder, to make us all sealed to everyone. That - I’m okay with, and it feels right.

    The other flip side is the earthly polygamy - sharing bed/home/kids/husband/sex with many women - I’m not too keen on this idea because what I share with my husband is sacred and I can’t think of any other woman I’d want to take part in that. Not sure if this is selfish, just what feels natural to me (limited earthly perspective here) So my answer when asked the polygamy question is “Well, Christ himself would have to explain the whys and hows of this to me, and then I’d like to think I’d do it if asked”

    Comment by Emily — October 21, 2005 @ 10:46 am

31. The 40 years was just a quip. If thats what doctrine was changed to, I would accept it - even before I was dead.

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 10:49 am

32. Jeremy,
    There are some kinds of being together that are worse than being alone. Sad but true.

    Comment by Mary Ann — October 21, 2005 @ 10:50 am

33. fMhLisa: Thanks for making me feel no so alone in my own thoughts on polygamy. I totally agree that if a man can experience the love and total devotion of many, why shouldn’t women experience equal benefit.

    FYI, women can be sealed to more than one man they just can’t do it while any of the men are alive. The church provided a way for sealing to take place of ancestors whose records were turned in of women who were married to more than one man, the church sealed her to all of the them and this can happen today. The men just have be dead, probably a lot to do with who would technically be the priesthood holder of the family if the woman was sealed to two, three men - some dead, some living. Men definitely have more freedom. They even have more freedom about sealings after civil divorces. It really comes down to ” a woman can’t serve two masters” so to speak. Of course, people who know about the multiple sealing ability for women always assume that she will have to pick which husband she wants, but they never make the same assumption for the husband needing to pick only one wife.

    All of the things that we feel about polygamy were felt by the women who practiced it. Emma hated it, Violate Kimball really did not like it, she did not want her only daughter to be married to Joseph Smith (as a plural wife), Brigham was even going to let them out of all their marriages because of the complaining by both men and women of how much they hated it. Don’t you think all of them wanted their husbands only to themselves?

    There are very few commandments that the Lord gives one time and then tells you otherwise (BoM-Jacob) that they are whoredoms. So it is a great sin unless he commands, similar to Nephi killing Laban. If he really wanted it to be the way of life for all, won’t he say it wasn’t a sin all the time?

    Polygamy was a means to an end. Joseph was persecuted, Mormons made it to Utah. The Church is known because of it. We are all troubled by it and therefore it is still a test of faith.

    I, also, agree with you that there are a lot of options for having children, I don’t believe that uteruses will be more valuable. It says that God organized already existing matter to create us and the world.

    Comment by ProudMary — October 21, 2005 @ 10:53 am

34. I’m very interested in the way that emotions are entering the discussion here. As people are voicing their objections about what what polygamy does to the “emotional bond” of marriage, our assumptions about marriage, emotion, and privacy are coming through. It seems that we are all assuming that a fulfilling marriage, above all other more mundane, practical, or even sexual concerns, is about the desire to share our most private feelings with one other special person; therefore, the prospect of sharing these emotions with more than one other is horrifying and somewhat promiscuous. It also seems that we are assuming that our emotions–and our desire to share them with that one other–will remain stable eternally. Does the concept of “eternal progression” apply to the marriage relationship and to the emotions? Or do we assume that our emotions (and the desire to share them with only one other) remain stable eternally while everything else about us changes?

    I don’t want to be construed as being pro-polygamy…I put a resounding “d” on the question that we discussed yesterday…but I do wonder if our assumptions about the emotional aspects of marriage are just that: contemporary assumptions. We seem to want to believe that marriage has always been and always will be a private, emotional, and unique relationship; part of our problem with polygamy is that it highlights marriage as an economic and political institution.

    Comment by Sonnet — October 21, 2005 @ 10:55 am

35. Let’s throw something else into the mixing pot …

    President Kimball once stated that any two righteous people (he meant man and woman of course) could have a successful marriage if they were willing to sacrifice and commit to each other.

    C.S. Lewis also wrote that if we could see the true spiritual form of any of our fellow humans, we would encounter a being that we “would be strongly tempted to worship.”

    Note that Pres. Kimball did not restrict his statement to “only those you find sexy” or (on a less superficial note) “only those whom you really emotionally connect with.” At least initially.

    Neither did C.S. Lewis restrict his statement only to people we like.

    My point in bringing this up is to point out that we might be viewing our expectations of marriage and love “through a glass darkly.” Once all the Hollywood nonsense and excess cultural baggage is stripped away, what will love within marriage really mean to us? Is the human heart really only large enough for one other person?

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 21, 2005 @ 11:14 am

36. That was essentially my point about there being something higher that we dont understand yet.

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 11:17 am

37. I guess I’m coming out again as in the minority. I don’t really have a problem with polygamy. It’s never bugged me that much. (I grew up in the Church, but my parents are converts. My husband is the one with polygamous ancestors.) I went through a period of studying polygamy several years ago, and I just don’t have a real problem with it. Like almost everyone else in the universe, I certainly don’t have a desire to live it, but I think I could stand it were Heavenly Father to ask me to.

    Neither do I really have a problem with the inequality aspect. I don’t want more than one husband, and it’s a lot easier for me to imagine a working polygynous family than the other way ’round. Probably a lack of imagination on my part, but there you go. In the eternities, in the CK, I think that if polygamous unions are going to exist then they will work out to be equal–I have never thought that Heavenly Father would not be fair. How, I do not know, but I’m not convinced that polygamy is inherently unequal.

    I am one of those who does have a sister-wife picked out, though it’s partly a joke. I’ve told my husband that if I die I’d like him to marry a certain single friend of mine. But another friend also has her picked out as a sister-wife, so we have to avoid driving in the same car. In reality, though, if I died I would want my husband to eventually marry again and find someone to be his companion and mother to our girls, and I trust him to find someone good. However, I do not plan on dying.

    I have never believed that polygamy will be mandatory in the CK, nor do I really think there will be more women than men. I doubt that eternal increase has much to do with our physical equipment. I think that polygamy is more of a ’special circumstance’ commandment, and don’t think for a moment that if polygamy became legal it would be reinstituted.

    Comment by dangermom — October 21, 2005 @ 11:33 am

38. Dangermom, I’m with you on your thoughts. And, I don’t think the church would reinstate polygamy even if the US legalized it. It was just an interesting thought.

    Comment by princessleah_mom — October 21, 2005 @ 11:47 am

39. My point in bringing this up is to point out that we might be viewing our expectations of marriage and love “through a glass darkly.” Once all the Hollywood nonsense and excess cultural baggage is stripped away, what will love within marriage really mean to us? Is the human heart really only large enough for one other person?

    I think this is a very important & excellent point.

    Comment by mindy — October 21, 2005 @ 11:51 am

40. When referencing instances where the Lord directs, allows, or condemns polygamy, we need to examine each situation individually. It was acceptable for David, until he wed Bathsheba, because the Lord had specifically given each of those women to him as a wife (at least as I understand what happened). Bathsheba had not been intended to wed David–she was Uriah’s wife. So not only did David sin in causing Uriah’s death, but he then sinned in marrying someone that the Lord had not intended him to marry. It was not acceptable for Solomon, because he also wed more women than the Lord intended. It was acceptable for Joseph and Brigham because the Lord directed it. It was not acceptable for the Nephites during the time of Jacob, because the Lord had not directed them to practice plural marriage at that point. Blindly assuming that a given practice is always completely authorized by the Lord ignores the fact that it still needs to be done within the remaining restrictions he sets on it.

    Comment by Space Chick — October 21, 2005 @ 12:40 pm

41. The only way I could share my husband and not be a jealous wreck is to love him less. Or not love him in the romantic or even emotional sense. May be his friend and one in perpose (family and church) but that would be the only way to make it liveable. It would be a business arangment not a loving family and that is so sad.

    Comment by Noone — October 21, 2005 @ 12:50 pm

42. Response to #9 Mark or should I call you Job - that me get this straight I am to sacrifice/share everything for polygamy as a woman, but you, as a man, gain multiiple sex partners. Wow! Sign me up. I can sacrafice everything for a just God who will eventually make all earthly wrongs right. But this is the heart of the matter, the definition of a just, equal God to both men and women.

    I’m sorry to say, that until you understand the baggage of what it means to be female — to be paid less money for equal work, been deprived opportunity, been controlled, been treated as second class, been overlooked and unappreciated for centuries you cannot even begin to get all the deeper meaning of looking toward eternity as finally being treated as an equal.

    The marriage convenant has lots of implications, let start talking about worlds and continuation. If a man has twelve wives sealed to him, how many future worlds will he have, how many will she have? The past GA’s taught that a man would have a world with each wife. So if this is the case, again here is the inequality. He gets 12 worlds, and she gets 1. That would continue the male dominated world / earthly / eternity scenerio. So, when are women finally treated the same in priviledge and reward?

    The practice is not fair nor equal. And God tells us He is a God of equality. Banning the Blacks from the priesthood was not fair, and that eventually changed, although many church leaders never thought it would.

    Comment by ProudMary — October 21, 2005 @ 12:53 pm

43. My wife and I have talked about polygamy in relation to church history, and we’ve found that for both of us it is that “straw” issue…as in the straw that breaks these camels backs. I can seriously say that I would be gone, left the church, and on my way to somthing else. I feel it’s better to be friends in Terrestial than shared in Celestial.This comes from a number of different areas, I’m related to some of the big polygamists in Mormon history and have a long history of black sheep as well, probably for the same reasons, we’re all stubbourn…lol. But polygamy is somthing that I can’t tolerate, it’s a viceral reaction that has grown constantly over the years. I firmly belive that God gave me my common sense for a reason and everything in me rejects the idea. It’s so deep rooted that I won’t marry again in the temple if my wife were to pass away. The irony of this is that I try very hard to see both sides of the issue on this, but everything in me recoils from polygamy. I come out on the extreme side on this, but I wonder among the visitors to this post, does anyone else have that same deep seated reaction to it?

    Comment by CanadianCynic — October 21, 2005 @ 12:54 pm

44. I do

    Comment by Noone — October 21, 2005 @ 1:09 pm

45. ProudMary,
    I do not believe that multiple sex partners is in any way a celestial issue. To include sex with eternal happiness is to put the natural man ahead of the spiritual. It is funny to me how many women mention that here.

    — to be paid less money for equal work, been deprived opportunity, been controlled, been treated as second class, been overlooked and unappreciated for centuries you cannot even begin to get all the deeper meaning of looking toward eternity as finally being treated as an equal.

    You have no idea what you are talking about. You know nothing about me. You will never even be able to understand what not being treated as an equal really means.

    No one ever said the Celestial Kingdom would be perfectly equal and ‘fair’ - just that you could gain eternal happiness. Is that not enough for you?

    But this is the heart of the matter, the definition of a just, equal God to both men and women.

    God is a ‘Just’ God. I promise you that you and I will both get more from him than either of us deserve. If you get more, I will not feel cheated. ‘Fairness’ has never been part of the equation.

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 1:31 pm

46. The question is asked if we can imagine an eternity in which plural marriages are compatible with the emotional intimacy enjoyed by a 20/21 C monogamous Western women like fMhLisa and other commentators here. How about starting with the 99.99% (conservatively estimated) of people in human history whose marriages were arranged by their families for purposes of property, tribal and familial alliances, procreation of children to support one in old age, because she and he were the only available kids of the same age in the village, and virtually every other reason EXCEPT for emotional companionship? What does eternal marriage, monogamous as well as polygamous, mean to these people, the vast majority of humankind?

    From this perspective, I would propose that we have to exercise some caution in projecting our cultural assumptions about marital emotional intimacy into the eternities. Lest I be accused of being an (male, chauvinist) apologist let me hasten to add that I think that the Church is partially at fault for the conflicted feelings expressed here. When trying to encourage starry-eyed young couples to marry in the temple, we are happy to let them think that that intense romantic love will continue forever when that assumption is questionable based on the fact that almost all couples in history never had romantic intimacy (let alone all of the complications pointed out here that arise over a lifetime even in a culture which seeks emotional intimacy in marriage). When trying to encourage family history and temple work, we are happy to let people fantasize about “Man’s Search for Happiness” style multi-generational families, when obviously generational differences will disappear in the eternities (I don’t know any grandparents who are looking to spend eternity wrinkled and white-haired no matter proudly they display family pictures showing them looking like that).

    I am not arguing that a monogamous Western couple who shared a lifetime of emotional intimacy won’t continue as such in the eternities. Personally I can’t believe that such a couple would be required to accept another wife. I am suggesting that there may be many humans historically whose life experience and cultures would not make them as uncomfortable with an eternal plural marriage arrangement as are modern Westerners. Or at the least, that there may be more to eternal relationships than we can imagine by simply projecting our own culture’s values into the heavens.

    All that said, let me finally hasten to add that as a 20/21 C Western single Mormon man, I personally can’t imagine anything better than the kind of eternal monogamous intimate marriage fMhLisa describes. As we say here in NYC, mazel tov.

    Comment by JWL — October 21, 2005 @ 1:36 pm

47. Mark,

    Salt Lake just issued a news release, Church policy now affirms that women marrying more than one man is accepted (and encouraged) practice. Since you are so unselfish and willing to sacrifice, I call dibs on getting first crack at your wife and/or girlfriend, mother, sister, and oh what the heck, your Grandmother (age is meaningless in the CK).

    Thanks for being so understanding. What’s our wife cooking for dinner tonight? (or are we taking turns on a rotating schedule?)

    Comment by Talon — October 21, 2005 @ 1:49 pm

48. Go ahead and ask her out. She wouldnt be interested in a baffoon like you. Anyone else feel like attacking me today?

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 1:54 pm

49. Mark, sorry, its late in the afternoon on a Friday, and I’m ready for the weekend. Couldn’t resist taking a shot at you.

    But I do make a mean BBQ steak if your interested.

    And I would characterize myself as more of a dork than a buffoon.

    Comment by Talon — October 21, 2005 @ 2:00 pm

50. JWL,
    Thank you for some meaty stuff to think on. I’m not sure if some of you underlying assumptions are valid. I’m sure much more of the human population has married for love and affection than .01%. I know it’s a common assertion that romantic love was invented only in the last few centuries, but basic historical knowledge makes that notion plain-old silly to my mind. I do agree that human history would provide a population much less likely to have objection than I, but human history is pretty much all about sexism, racism and elitism of every type being the status quo, and yet I’m extreemly fond of my egalitarian “all (wo)men are created equal” ethics. I like to think that God is no respector of persons.

    I’d like to read through you comment again and see what I missed. what a good comment.

    Mark,
    First of all, I would like to thank you for engaging in a civil debate with us in such a obviously antipodal setting. Very brave. But before we go further, I’d really like you to reread my five “Refrain from giving me Sunday school answers like:” above. You’ve already covered most of them despite my disclaimer. Including calling me proud and selfish which seems a trifle presumptious and judgemental of you. But feel free to continue, I’m tough.

    I have to tell you I’m not terribly fond of the argument, “God isn’t fair or equal or “just” in any way we mere mortals can understand”. Like I said above,

    “I can only understand what I can understand.

    Which doesn’t mean that my understanding, based on my 21st century morality system, is eternally right. But it is right for me, now. And I’m all I’ve got. And now is when I am. In my small brain

    .

    God gave me my brain and my conscience for a reason. I have to trust that he wants me to use them. I have to guard my own morals and inspiration, not rely on yours or anyone elses. I have to believe that God is just and kind and fair in a way that I can at least potentially understand, and I’m just being brually honest in stating what I do not understand polygyny, based on my morals, my inspiration, and my conscience. I don’t think you do either, really, or you would not veil your answers in “You can’t understand God and you are selfish and proud for not thinking like me” obvious uselessness.

    But if you can come up with something better, I’m all ears.

    Comment by fMhLisa — October 21, 2005 @ 2:32 pm

51. I wasnt trying to debate anyone, just expressing my views. Your comment is essentially the same as mine - God may not be fair in a way we can understand right now. And I wasnt insulting anyone, my comments were generic, although the attacks back on me were not.

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 2:40 pm

52. Personally, I’m kind of interested in Mark’s comment that Heaven isn’t necessarily “fair and equal.”

    I mean, we know that it isn’t really true that “all men are created equal” (like it says in the Declaration of Independence). If that were true, we all would look, think and act the same. No one on earth is equal. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are happier, etc.

    However, we still subscribe to this “delusional” concept of equality because it makes sense from a societal and legal standpoint in a wicked world. I think it’s true to say there would be some real evils in our society if we canned this artificial notion of equality.

    But is God bound by the same sort of “American equality” we seem to have in mind in this discussion? We are told he is no respecter of persons. But what does that mean?

    According to Mormon theology, we weren’t even equal in the pre-mortal existence. Note how the scriptures speak of God’s spirit children and how “there were many noble and great ones.” Obviously not a state of “American equality.”

    Why do we expect equal treatement in the hereafter?

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 21, 2005 @ 3:02 pm

53. Mark, please don’t pout. It makes me tired. I don’t recall anything particularly personal against you (but then they weren’t talking about me).

    I do know that I took your accusations about pride and selfishness personally, you were talking about my post after all. Even if you did not mean them that way. Perhaps the attacks upon you were in the same vein. Not meant personally but taken so.

    Comment by fMhLisa — October 21, 2005 @ 3:10 pm

54. Seth, your notion of equality and mine are not based in the same assumption.

    I don’t think “all men created equal” means that every person has equal brains or ambition or looks. To me it’s more like some platonic essencial worth of souls. Maybe summed up in an idea like, God loves every baby equally, and continues loving every person equally, saint or sinner, for good or ill, joy or pain. Our essencial worth is equal, even if the gifts and trials and outcomes vary wildly.

    No, equality doesn’t exist outside our minds. But holding to the hope is better than the alternative.

    We do believe in a God of justice and a God of mercy. That’s really the point of the whole Jesus thing, isn’t it?

    I think it’s very much a part of the human condition to long for, hope for, believe in ultimate justice. That “justice” and “fairness” exists somewhere. It’s a deep-seated part of my make-up at least. The other choice is to resign yourself to the meaninglessness of it all. Which is also a valid choice, I suppose.

    Comment by fMhLisa — October 21, 2005 @ 3:34 pm

55. A very interesting converstation. I am torn on the issue of whether or not I think I could accept the idea of polygamy - be it said that if the Lord through the prophet commanded it, I would hope that I would obey (however grudgingly). My issue with it is purely temporal. The eternal implications really mean nothing to me, as I have come to accept certain things about the eternities as completely unknown, yet with full faith that when the Lord says “fullness of joy” he means it.
    I look at my wonderful wife now, and the relationship we have, and I shudder to think of how our lives would change with the addition of another wife (all my natural male urges aside). I think of how I would divide my time between the two, knowing how sensitive my wife is to those tender times alone. It would be difficult for me, as a husband, knowing how to make my ‘wives’ fully happy.
    But I think of the issues in the afterlife in totally different terms. Time together means nothing when an understanding of eternity is made real. Do we honestly think at that point that we won’t have enough patience, understanding, and love to overcome any of our earthly misgivings?
    What is sex in the eternities? It is wonderfully fulfilling for both my wife and me right now. It strengthens that intimate bond that would be difficult, if not impossible, to replicate with another woman at the same time. That said, what roll that will play after this life is a mystery to me. It might mean nothing, or it might play a great role. But it seams to me to be a very mortal issue, but a strong one.
    It pains me to see those who have said they would leave the church at the onset of a renewal of polygamy. How can this be? If I believe the prophet speaks for the Lord in this, and would choose to leave it behind, do I doubt that I will sorely regret losing eternal exaltation? I must doubt the Lord when he says that I would have eternal happiness, or at maybe I don’t really care that much. If indeed polygamy were part of that happiness, it would be hard for me to say that I would not accept it.
    And if it means anything, if I have two wives, I would feel more indadequate as a husband knowing that I have two people in the home now that are kinder, wiser, and better than me.
    I don’t say that anyone here is wrong in their opinion, because I don’t know enough to claim any authority on the subject. I know what I want in terms of my eternal afterlife - and if polygamy were part of that, I would do my best to be sure I did my best to obey.

    I just hope that I never have to find out.

    Comment by zona — October 21, 2005 @ 3:47 pm

56. 15.

    I read somewhere that some of the Quorum of the Twelve during the polygamy era actually made statements that polygamy was necessary for the highest level of exhaltation. That polygamy was an eternal concept and a characteristic of Celestial glory.

    I suppose I really ought to keep track of where I read things. Can anyone help me out here?

    Melvin J. Ballard refuted that idea:

    Comment by manaen — October 21, 2005 @ 4:00 pm

57. 15. Sheesh - posted before finishing. 2nd try follows.

    I read somewhere that some of the Quorum of the Twelve during the polygamy era actually made statements that polygamy was necessary for the highest level of exhaltation. That polygamy was an eternal concept and a characteristic of Celestial glory.

    I suppose I really ought to keep track of where I read things. Can anyone help me out here?

    Melvin J. Ballard refuted that idea:

    “Those who are denied endless increase cannot be what God is, because that in connection with other things, makes him God. The eternity of the marriage covenant ought to be understood by Latter-day Saints clearly to be the sealing of at least one woman to one man for time and for all eternity. Then do not get confused on that point and imagine that it necessarily means more than one woman. It may be, certainly, but it does mean at least that one man and one woman are sealed together by the power of the holy priesthood and by the sealing approval of the Holy Ghost for time and for all eternity, and then that they keep their covenants, before they will be candidates for the highest degree of celestial glory, and unto them only of all these groups of our Father’s children is the promise made of endless or eternal increase.”

    – Melvin J. Ballard, “The Three Degrees of Glory”, Discourse in Ogden Tabernacle, 22 Sept 1922, p. 10

    Full text available here.

    Comment by manaen — October 21, 2005 @ 4:03 pm

58. I do not believe that multiple sex partners is in any way a celestial issue. To include sex with eternal happiness is to put the natural man ahead of the spiritual. It is funny to me how many women mention that here.

    I’ve got to disagree here. One of my favorite peculiarly Mormon doctrines is “the body and the spirit are the soul of [hu]man[s]” (D&C 88:15). Pure spirit and pure matter are not mutually exclusive, but mutually dependent (or at least that’s how I understand what I’ve come to call “Mormon physics”). My sexual desire for my husband isn’t some fallen urge resulting from a concupiscent Fall. I don’t long for the day when the lipid bilayer of my skin no longer thrills with the passion of touch–rather, like the early Saints I find the idea of death’s bifurcation of the soul traumatic (see D&C 45).

    Sure, sex can be base and debased. But ideally, in our sexual relationships we give ourselves wholly to another, unselfishly, and in so doing are actually given back unity of body and spirit (a high-falutin take on orgasm,but I’m sticking by it). AND we achieve unity with our partner, “becoming one” in various ways which transcend the easily marital metaphor or the crass sexual joke. I believe that sexual relationships outlast this life, and remain a means to fully meeting the measure of our creation. If you believe that, polygamy does get complex. So it’s natural to bring it up.

    Mark, as for your wonderment about why so many women bring up the topic? Well, I don’t speak for all women, but I suppose it might be because women are the ones who have, most often, borne the brunt of debased, despiritualized sexuality. It’s sort of hard to imagine being eternally happy while being the practical equivelent of sexual chattel. I’m not saying that Mark made this equation–he hasn’t–but it does seem the upshot of the “we’ll need polygamy to make many babies” argument.

    Comment by janet — October 21, 2005 @ 5:21 pm

59. Go ahead and ask her out. She wouldnt be interested in a baffoon like you. Anyone else feel like attacking me today?

    I’ve thought about it.

    Christ had an interesting parable about some field workers. Each was paid what they agreed to accept, though all were paid the same. At the end of the day, those who started first complained, God rebuked them.

    Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — October 21, 2005 @ 5:38 pm

60. But ideally, in our sexual relationships we give ourselves wholly to another, unselfishly, and in so doing are actually given back unity of body and spirit (a high-falutin take on orgasm,but I’m sticking by it). AND we achieve unity with our partner, “becoming one” in various ways which transcend the easily marital metaphor or the crass sexual joke. I believe that sexual relationships outlast this life, and remain a means to fully meeting the measure of our creation. If you believe that, polygamy does get complex. So it’s natural to bring it up.

    I would agree with this - I think that this might be right. I wonder, however, how strongly it will play that role of uniting and binding one another - as opposed to other means.

    Is it safe to say that in this area - regarding the roles of sex and intimate relations in eternity - we are probably left almost completely to our own minds? Contemplating the eternal consequences of a potentially polygamous relationship should start and end, at least for me, in my faith in the deliverer of the message. If the prophet states the Lord has commanded us to reinstate the polygamous order, I can hee and haw all I want, but it doesn’t change the fact that the Lord wants it.

    I would surely fast and pray with all I had to be sure, and would - forgive the unworthy choice of words - ask that the cup be passed from me. Why we would live it, I have no idea. It doesn’t make any sense to me, and I really doubt I would do it with a smile on my face. But if that is what the prophet said is required to have exaltation - dangit, I want exaltation like REAL BAD!

    Again, I hope I never hear a peep about it from the bretheren.

    Comment by zona — October 21, 2005 @ 5:42 pm

61. … in our religion, in our Church, that delegate[s] roles and “rewards” based on gender.

    What rewards?

    Comment by Ben S. — October 21, 2005 @ 5:48 pm

62. … in our religion, in our Church, that delegate[s] roles and “rewards” based on gender.

    What rewards?

    She most definately means home teaching and the Elders Quorum Moving Company.

    Comment by zona — October 21, 2005 @ 5:54 pm

63. im not pouting
    stop putting words in my mouth

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 5:59 pm

64. the field worker parable is an exellent example of what i was trying to say

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 6:04 pm

65. stop putting words in my mouth

    Well, try putting some remotely empathetic words there yourself and people will probably stop.

    I’m not trying to pick on you, really. It’s just that overt defensiveness doesn’t really forward the conversation. Disagreement is useful; bile rarely is.

    Comment by janet — October 21, 2005 @ 6:05 pm

66. when have i been overtly defensive - when someone told me he wanted to try to bed down my wife? maybe.. other than that, please point it out?

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 6:06 pm

67. Mark–

    You have no idea what you are talking about. You know nothing about me. You will never even be able to understand what not being treated as an equal really means.

    When I read that, I thought a couple of things. One was that you were defensive, and the other was that perhaps you had good reason to be, that perhaps life had dealt you some unfairness of your own. And I can certainly empathize with that–and having put in my two cents in a conservative conversation or two, I can also empathize with feeling a wee bit picked on. So PLEASE believe that I’m not trying to pick on you. An honest engagement of ideas benefits all of us. It’s just that the “you will never understand me” line sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Following on the heels of “You have no idea what you are talking about,” it comes off as mean and self-pitying. This doesn’t mean you are mean and self-pitying, but try and think how the text might look in a vacuum of other knowledge about you.

    Which leads me to think I sound annoying, so I shall now shut up. and let y’all get back to the business at hand.

    Comment by janet — October 21, 2005 @ 6:13 pm

68. You try being a black male for a while, watch your brother get almost beat to death cause he is a N—– when you are a teenageer, and then have some suburbanite white female tell you how picked on and oppressed she is. Then get back to me. Thats all i meant. You never know who you are talking to.

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 6:17 pm

69. Ah, I thought it might be something like that. And I’d agree that it sucks rocks. In fact, the racial baggage in Mormon culture bothers me even more than the sexist stuff. Check out Genesis–they’re cool.

    But how do you know she’s a whilte suburbanite female? Even if she is, her life can still have plenty of rough stuff that can challenge as much as yours. Done now.

    Comment by janet — October 21, 2005 @ 6:22 pm

70. sure it can. but i bet it doesnt.

    Comment by Mark — October 21, 2005 @ 6:34 pm

71. Mark

    #68 “you never know who you are talking to”

    Correct. we don’t know where you’re coming from, but you appear to be making judgements on others, and remember you don’t know who you’re talking to. If you’ve read some of the other recent posts (Name and Shame) you’ll see some people who comment here have gone through some very difficult things in their life too. It’s not helpful to judge, and doesn’t make for good, friendly debate. I think some have got their back up with how you have written some comments which come across as agressive - like describing the author of the post as arrogant and selfish. We want to hear what people have to say from all walks of life, and would like to do it with respect to others. You obviously feel unrespected as do others by some of your comments.

    Let’s all remember the golden rule - do unto others as you would have others do to you!

    Comment by Rebecca — October 21, 2005 @ 6:38 pm

72. You know, I’m really not interested in whether Mark is being defensive or not. I’m also not exactly on the edge of my seat to find out if others were possibly attacking him. I’m more interested in the useful points they all made.

    Manaen,

    Thanks for the Ballard quote. But to whom was he responding? Was it just a misconception of the Gospel that had grown among the rank and file (and maybe some lower level regional leadership)? Or was it something that actual Apostles were preaching?

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 21, 2005 @ 7:45 pm

73. the field worker parable is an exellent example of what i was trying to say

    You will find that that is about as far as I go in beating up on people.

    Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — October 21, 2005 @ 8:58 pm

74. It pains me to see those who have said they would leave the church at the onset of a renewal of polygamy. How can this be? If I believe the prophet speaks for the Lord in this, and would choose to leave it behind, do I doubt that I will sorely regret losing eternal exaltation? I must doubt the Lord when he says that I would have eternal happiness, or at maybe I don’t really care that much. If indeed polygamy were part of that happiness, it would be hard for me to say that I would not accept it.

    Zona, I think the key words in your statement are “If I believe the Prophet speaks for the Lord in this”. It’s a big “if” and it’s not as cut and dry as many wish. When do Prophets speak for the Lord? In the past, Prophets have have said all kinds of things that don’t seem particularly inspired in hind sight. Were they speaking then as Prophets, or as fallable men? And how are we to know the difference? I don’t know, btw, wish I did. Luckily, I think the likelyhood of us facing this decision very slim.

    Comment by fMhLisa — October 21, 2005 @ 9:17 pm

75. Well, I might feel differently if I were married, but I can sort of get the polygamy thing- not really the Mormon version, but the I-have-several-sisters-and-best-friends-that-I’m-sealed-to-forever, and what the heck, a lover or two or three. Growing up Mormon, I thought the idea of polygamy was harsh, but when I got to college and had boyfriends when my friends did not, I wanted to share my boyfriends for all the non-sexual things guys can do- dancing, walking arm in arm, carrying heavy things, and even comforting guy hugs. Men just have an energy that I like and if my girlfriends didn’t have a man, then I had an urge to share! I can also be very jealous if I don’t feel like the primary person in my guy’s life. I think my generousity was based on feeling securely loved. I can even imagine in another time and place that I wouldn’t mind my husband having sex with someone else (ok, that’s a real stretch!) if I was still his alpha and omega. That’s sort of where the idea of polygamy breaks down for me, not everyone can be alpha and omega. Ok, if I’m in heaven and there’s no men left, and my husband is unwaveringly in love with me, and there is a lonesome woman up there, and we can’t just create another man for her or borrow one from a distant galaxy, I would be willing to share. I admit it. I can’t help it! It would be suck to be lonesome for all eternity. Is this why the Gods kept coming down from Olympus to have affairs with mortals?

    Comment by Braidwood — October 22, 2005 @ 12:03 am

76. Zona,
    I don’t know if there is a “brightline” between when a prophet is speaking as a prophet and when he isn’t. See http://letyourmindalone.blogspot.com/2005/10/apostles-geniuses-and-ducks.html

    Comment by Sheldon — October 22, 2005 @ 6:56 am

77. OK, I think I ran across a post from LisaB (hope I got the right Lisa) on the bloggernacle talking about a woman she knew who was engaged to a previously divorced man. Yet the guy had not yet canceled the temple sealing to his ex-wife and couldn’t see why this was a problem for his new fiancee.

    Alright, first off, it does seem a little obtuse of him to be ignorant of what her problem was. After all, who wants to live in the shadow of another woman. Has he really let go of his ex? Is he comparing you to her? Sure it’s disconcerting! That ought to be obvious.

    So I sympathize with this woman. However, lets turn it around.

    Is it realistic to expect a spouse who has been married and separated (whether via divorce or death) to ever completely get over the old spouse? Are they supposed to act like marriage number one never happened? Should they be required to give up both sweet and bitter memories simply because they’ve found a new wonderful someone?

    Perhaps when we marry a widow/widower or someone previously divorced, we need to accept that we aren’t just taking a new spouse. We’re also taking those previous spouses into our lives - as a part of the person we love. Past loves (and present loves in case of divorcees) are a part of the person we love. If that is resented, perhaps we should question what it really is we love about this person.

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 22, 2005 @ 8:53 am

78. My husband is still sealed to his ex-wife. It never bothered me.

    If she wanted to be sealed to her current husband, there would be some red tape to go through, but she could do it. She would also have to be re-baptized.

    I don’t know, I just think it’s gonna work out. If we’re all perfect and Gods, it will all be in love and won’t matter anyway.

    I think this is tautology. To say, repetitious argument.

    Comment by annnegb — October 22, 2005 @ 9:35 am

79. Perhaps when we marry a widow/widower or someone previously divorced, we need to accept that we aren’t just taking a new spouse. We’re also taking those previous spouses into our lives - as a part of the person we love. Past loves (and present loves in case of divorcees) are a part of the person we love. If that is resented, perhaps we should question what it really is we love about this person.

    I completely agree as this could pertain to ex-boyfriends (and girlfriends), and I think the basic sentiment is lovely. Still, we can’t just cavalierly conflate the constitutive identity that gets built on experiences with other beloveds and the actual physical presence of those beloveds. My husband, poor thing, had to accept that I’d ferociously loved at least one man before him, that I’d have married him and would in fact still step in front of semi-truck to save his life. He seemed pretty OK with that–said all the excellent things about how it showed my good heart, etc. etc. And I doubt very much I would have developed in such a way that I would have gotten married at all, if it weren’t for this other love of mine. So my hubby even feels like he “owes” my ex, and is fine that we’re friends.

    Still, I can’t imagine the mental schizophrenia if I were living with both of them, trying to equally dole out adoration and a true sharing of self. I am made up of my experiences and of exes in a sort of existential way, but once they pop up in corporeal reality, things get a little wonky. I can’t imagine asking my husband to “share” me in the present. He shares me with my past–and I’m OK with that as far as his exes are concerned, too–but I still can’t fathom how this would work in the present. Or future.

    Lovely turn of the phrase, Seth. BTW, I think I may know you. Did you attend the ever-amusing Y?

    Comment by janet — October 22, 2005 @ 1:58 pm

80. fMhLisa: Thanks for your comment in #54, that is what I also meant by fair and equal. We all have different challenges and come from many different walks of life. Our situation on earth will never be “equal” in any sense. But the equality that I hope for -is to receive the same “reward/joy” as a man receives for his stewardship. I expect to be a God just as my husband is a God, therefore, there cannot, in my little mortal mind, be any difference in our power, authority, knowledge or joy. Just as the Father and Son are equal in power and glory. So him having more than one spouse and me not sets up, again in my little mind, inequality of position/reward/joy. I cannot accept plural marriage as part of eternity. He would have something more than what I would have.

    Comment by ProudMary — October 22, 2005 @ 2:03 pm

81. “We just don’t know the mind of God”
    If that’s all you’ve got, just keep your mouth shut. I’d love to hear some actual thoughts, holes in my thinking, leaps my imagination has not taken, or even your own opinion. But for that regurgitated tripe, just sit on your hands.

    LOL! fMHLisa, Awesome post, I love you! And if I didn’t agree with you so much in this vein of monogomy, and wasn’t already married to a terrific woman, I’d definitely stand in line to be your #2 in the CK if you’d have me! ;o)

    Seriously, all this banter leads me back to my earlier, admittedly dreadful conclusion/wish, that we’ll get beyond the sex in the hereafter and simply tie into a huge network of loving friendships/relationships, unburdened by the jealously/envy/lust/etc. badness that so often accompanies the natural drive here. I believe the sealing is merely the weaving of your life’s thread into the tapestry that is God’s family (and your own). That idea so dissolves most of the problems mentioned. Don’t get me wrong, I like sex as much or more than the next guy/gal, but there’s so much more to grok in the wide, wide universe that makes me hope that becomes a non-issue in the eternities.

    Comment by Rich — October 22, 2005 @ 2:42 pm

82. I’m truly fascinated by the tonal differences between this discussion and the preceding one on BCC. I think I like this one better.

    Space Chick (#40): Your comments about the OT badness of some polygamous unions are interesting in light of the outcomes. If Bathsheba wasn’t the one David was supposed to marry, why did she become the mother of Solomon and the umpty-great grandmother of our Lord and Savior? There are some great paradoxes in the reading of the Old Testament, and ther outcomes aren’t always what we might expect. In fact, the great Catholic scholar Raymond Brown points out that Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus includes only four women, all of whom had non-standard marriage/childbirth situations: Tamar, Ruth, Bathsheba (not by name — shades of Valerie Plame!) and Mary herself.

    Things are hard to understand looking backwards; probably even harder looking forward into the eternities. But as for me and my house, we’re with fmhLisa.

    Comment by Hugh — October 22, 2005 @ 3:55 pm

83. I agree with Rich’s statement:
    

    I believe the sealing is merely the weaving of your life’s thread into the tapestry that is God’s family (and your own). That idea so dissolves most of the problems mentioned.

    Theuestion that comes to mind, if we are sealed to our beloved, and we get to the eternities and our beloved isn’t actually a very good person and therefor goes to the terrestial or even telestiol degree, but we were wonderful and inherit the Celestial degree of glory

    Comment by princessleah_mom — October 22, 2005 @ 4:17 pm

84. (bad, bad computer!!!! I wasn’t ready to send it! I’ll have the “real” post up in a minute.)

    Comment by princessleah_mom — October 22, 2005 @ 4:18 pm

85. I agree with Rich’s statement:

    I believe the sealing is merely the weaving of your life’s thread into the tapestry that is God’s family (and your own). That idea so dissolves most of the problems mentioned.

    I think that sealings, at least here on earth are not so much for the purpose of “this is the person or people we are going to be with forever”, but rather a sealing into the house of the Lord. That’s why I don’t have issue with Brigham or Joseph having so many wives; it provided the woman a way, through marriage and sealing, to enter into the Lord’s kingdom.

    What about this scenario: if we are sealed to our beloved, and we get to the eternities and our beloved isn’t actually a very good person and therefore goes to the terrestrial or even telestial degree, but we were wonderful and inherit the Celestial degree of glory, what happens to us at that point? Are we going to be subject to stay with our spouse who we are sealed to? (My words are failing me, this isn’t coming out right, but I hope you get my point.) Or are we going to be able to go to the celestial kingdom and have a different spouse?

    I’m not really asking because it bothers me, it doesn’t, I just want to see what everyone else’s opinion is.

    Comment by princessleah_mom — October 22, 2005 @ 4:30 pm

86. #30–>

    “My Mother always used to say to me and I still ponder on my answers to her question: Would you deny a righteous woman the right to the celestial kingdom? (similar to the sacrifice everything thread mentioned previously, but I always try to view a good friend when I ponder this question).

    I’ve heard this before too, and I guess it confuses me and I have always viewed it as sort of a pacifier to make women and girls feels guilty about not being 100% gung-ho about polygamy. Here’s the glaring contradiction I see… We are constantly told that if we don’t find a spouse in this life, there will be one for us in the next. So, then, how is the onus on a married woman to “allow” (so to speak) her husband to marry a single, righteous woman when, according to church leaders, this single righteous woman has someone waiting for her? Why do we need placeholders to be sealed to in this life if our eternal spouse is waiting for us in the next? Wouldn’t the married woman be within church teachings to say, “Look, sigle righteous woman, I’m sorry you don’t have a husband yet, but since you are single and righteous, there will be a husband for you in the next realm, so you can’t have mine.”

    I have always thought that each person has their specific test in life. For some people, it’s a desire to drink. Others, love of money. Others R-Rated movies. For some people, isn’t it fair to say that their specific test is being alone? It’s a hard test, no doubt, but I’m sure we’d all agree that our tests are hard. And, if the Lord doesn’t give us anything we can’t handle, then clearly a single woman who is righteous isn’t bearing more than she can handle, no matter how hard it may seem.

    So, with all these different areas of consolation to single, righteous women, how is it that the guilt trip is given to married (and unmarried, not to mention) women that by not being SUPER THRILLED about polygamy, they are somehow denying another woman her entrance into the CK?

    And if that married woman IS denying the other woman, because it’s somehow necessary that you be married and sealed before you die, then what about all the people who live in this age who can’t be sealed to someone because they haven’t found the right person and there aren’t polygamous marriages allowed? Do we throw our hands up and say, “Oh, crap! Sorry ladies! The gov’t is denying a single, righteous woman her place in the CK! Unfortunately for you, you were born in the wrong era.”

    I don’t know–to me the whole “Denying another woman” thing is really a guilt trip used to manipulate women into accepting it. This isn’t a plate of cookies or a basketball…it’s a marriage and it’s a spouse and it’s an eternal life. I don’t think that statements like that take into account the gravity of the situation and the real emotions women (and men) have about this issue–statements like that serve to keep women feeling bad about feeling “the wrong way.”

    Comment by adrianne — October 22, 2005 @ 6:06 pm

87. I’m a bit curious.

    As far as I can tell, all the identifiably female posters in this blog are married. Comments abound about their felicitous life and their reluctance (or not, on occasion) to share.

    How about the single, righteous women in our midst? Are you slavering for the opportunity to take some other woman’s charity and share her husband in a secondary role, either in this life or the next? How would you feel to be the object of some Lady Bountiful’s sacrifice of her marital bliss so as not to “deny” you the celestial kingdom? And would you accept the CK on those kinds of terms?

    Were I a single woman, I think I know how I’d answer (pretty obvious, isn’t it?), but I’m interested in the reactions of those who are really experiencing that particular “trial.” Is polygamy better than singlehood?

    Comment by Hugh — October 22, 2005 @ 7:51 pm

88. I am not single now. but I used to be. As a never married single, the answer was no–I’d vote to stay single in the next life, rather than become one of many wives.

    I turned down an invitation to be a plural wife in this life (a story I still find fascinating and chilling).

    As a divorced single, I discovered that many single women in the stake preferred the single life to marriage (monogamous). These women, who knew me in my previous Temple marriage, seemed to regard me differently once I became single–like I had become in some way real, like them. They confided in me that priesthood leaders were urging them to marry and they could not see the benefit–all they would get is a man to pick up after, cook for, and who would boss them around (their phrasing).

    As a divorced single, my vote was still to remain single rather than to become a plural wife, in the next life.

    That being said, I can well understand any single woman who had prepared herself for marriage rather than for any ourside or career interests, and who may have learned to link her value as a human being to her marital status, who might opt for polygamy.

    A truism in all societies is that when women’s options are limited, men benefit.

    Comment by Laurie — October 22, 2005 @ 8:27 pm

89. I agree with some that the sealing isn’t about a husband and wife per se, but being sealed together into the larger family of our Heavenly Father. Being with God is about love; love without lust, or pride; jealousy or envy; ownership or mortal emotional shortcomings. If we can make it into the realm of the highest degree of glory, if we get that far, perhaps those emotions will be so old fashioned and “mortal” they won’t even be a consideration. I’m a lousy writer, so I can’t express myself very well, but I hope I’m making myself clear. I just can’t foresee it being an issue in the eternities. If Heavenly Father says we’ll be happy and be put into the situation that makes us happy, I believe Him.

    (#79) “Still, I can’t imagine the mental schizophrenia if I were living with both of them, trying to equally dole out adoration and a true sharing of self.”

    And why would we think that if there are eternal polygamous relationships in the eternities, that we’ll have to live together? Yuck.

    Comment by meems — October 22, 2005 @ 10:21 pm

90. Ok, I’ve had a thought that I think I should share, even though this topic has perhaps already peaked. . . .

    The eternal now, and time is only measured unto man: I have a hard time wrapping my mind around an existance without time, beginning and end, durration, etc. Removing that factor changes much of the dynamic of “sharing” a spouse. Either we are perfectly united in an eternal now or we are not. It isn’t like we’d be every other weekend with the other wife becuase there wouldn’t be such a thing as a weekend.

    #86: The only thing I have to add is that it doesn’t make sense for a man’s or a woman’s reward to be contingent upon the agency of another (according to D&C 121:46). The “everlasting dominion” is obtained “without compulsory means.”

    Comment by Mary Ann — October 23, 2005 @ 6:41 am

91. Janet,

    Yes, I did attend BYU. “And all that that implies …”

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 23, 2005 @ 8:48 am

92. I think a large portion of LDS doctrine–particularly doctrine describing the afterlife, including temple elements–were derived out of a desire to placate rather than explicate.

    To mothers experiencing stillbirth or the death of young children, the pat-on-the-head answer is “you’ll get to raise them in the afterlife/the Millenium/sometime.” Really? How would that work? How does that make sense.

    To women who hold out for an ever-elusive compatible temple-worthy LDS partner instead of marrying a lowly Gentile for life, the pat-on-the-head doctrine is “there, there, you’ll get married in the next life.” Really? Yippeeee!!! I get to get married after I’m dead, and have no blood anymore, so that probably means no sex, but…YIPEE! Because I’m righteous I get to share my sister’s husband, or marry Nephi, or…or…

    To women who don’t want to “share husbands” in the afterlife, the pat-on-the-head answer is “don’t worry, you’ll be celestially-minded, so you won’t be upset over it there. Really? Or, “only those who really want to, will.” Uh-HUH. Who really wants to do that? Who will Emma Smith Bidamon be with in the eternities? Will it be anything like the rosy pictures the Ensign continuously disingenuously paints of a faithful, monagamous Emma and Joseph staring into each other’s eyes for the eternities?

    The longer I studied the Church’s teachings on this and other conundrums, the more I realized these were just the gerentocracy’s way of placating the disenfranchised–MOSTLY the WOMEN of the Church. Once the realization is reached that it’s pretty much a fairy tale, the angst dissipates.

    Comment by Farah — October 23, 2005 @ 9:32 am

93. It also doesn’t help that despite anguish, questioning and doubts from a large percentage of (thinking) Church membership, the leadership does little more than recycle faithful history or preach the same core tenets of Christianity without delving into the finer points of Mormonism.

    If even the prophets, seers and revelators can’t see or reveal the status of women in the afterlife, or disclose the nature of male/female relationships, marriage, etc. or expound on the family unit beyond a quizzical “you have either a male or female spirit and get married before you have a family, but that doesn’t include gay marriage even where it’s legal”, of what use is it to have seers, revelators, or apostles, anyway?

    Finally, who says everyone in the whole world, from the beginning of the world, wants to be married forever and ever? Some want to be married for fifty. Others not at all. Some marry multiple spouses and love all of them. Why should there be a one-size fits all?

    Comment by Farah — October 23, 2005 @ 9:42 am

94. Mark: Re: #68, please give me your definitition of what a white suburbanite means? I would love to hear what stereotypical associations you place on that description. Then I can let you know if I fit. I am white, that much is true, but I don’t technically live in the suburbs.

    Comment by ProudMary — October 23, 2005 @ 11:45 am

95. Farah,

    Perhaps you would be interested in this remark from C.S. Lewis in “A Greif Observed”

    “Talk to me about the truth of religion and I’ll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I’ll listen submissively. But don’t come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don’t understand.
    Unless, of course, you can literally believe all that stuff about family reunions ‘on the further shore’, pictured in entirely earthly terms. But that is all unscriptural, all out of bad hymns and lithographs. There’s not a word of it in the Bible. And it rings flase. We know it couldn’t be like that. Reality never repeats. The exact same thing is never taken away and given back. How well the Spiritualists bait thier hook! ‘Things on this side are not so different after all.’ There are cigars in Heaven. For that is what we should all like. The happy past restored.
    And that, just that, is what I cry out for, with mad, midnight endearments and entreaties spoken into the empty air.”

    Comment by Seth Rogers — October 23, 2005 @ 7:14 pm

96. here are cigars in Heaven.

    Indeed. Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar. Even in heaven.

    But don’t come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don’t understand.

    Or, that you’ve had time, when things are no longer so raw, and have come to understand.

    Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — October 24, 2005 @ 5:57 am

97. Hugh–”Umpty-great grandmother”–I LOVE IT!

    Seth–Yeah, that was me about the woman who broke up with her fiance over the sealing issue.

    Stephen–Will you extrapolate how you thing the parable of the workers in the field answers concerns about the possiblity of polygamy in the eternities? Seems to me in the parable the promised compensation or reward IS THE SAME. The work is not. So this parable would seem to apply if polygamy were an earthbound institution only (the workers who had to do more work–deal with polygamy–here on earth to earn the same reward–monogamous exaltation–in the hereafter) but not if the reward is different–unless you think of polygamy as the reward everyone will receive regardless of marital status on earth (different work).

    Comment by LisaB — October 24, 2005 @ 9:00 am

98. Oh, and Hugh, I believe being born through a line that included harlots and adulterers was essential to Christ overcoming all things. We can’t say “well, Christ didn’t inherit or overcome THIS particular challenge”. (See my comments on the Times & Seasons post by Julie re: Tamar about a month ago.) Doesn’t mean David’s behavior was sanctioned.

    Comment by LisaB — October 24, 2005 @ 9:10 am

99. Farah,

    i can think of alot of reasons why having seers, revelators, and prophets around is a good thing: from them we know the true nature of God, we know the truth of our meaning with life, we know how to be exalted, we ahve the authority on earth to be blessed with personal guidance and salvation, we receive guidance, help, and strength, to make it through this life and into the next……..

    One thing we don’t have them for is to be political candidates who tell us what we want to here and to make the rules the way we want them. They are there to tell us what the rules are and how we can follow them. The do not ask for blind reliance, but rather provide a way without which, we would be lost as to things of God. They serve as a window (however limited it may be in some ways) to Heaven.

    Comment by jennifer — October 24, 2005 @ 9:44 am

100. Jennifer, I’m not arguing the need for having had prophets seers and revelators who revealed the true nature of God, how to be exalted, etc., but that was more than 100 years ago.

     Where’s the revelation about what exactly sealings mean, etc.? What kind of new guidance and help do current prophets offer that hasn’t been offered in the same words by prophets, seers and revelators over the past 170 years?

     Comment by Farah — October 24, 2005 @ 12:21 pm

101. I think prophets raise as many questions as they answer. Instead of the Christian woman wondering whether her marriage will last into the eternities, we have the Mormon woman wondering whether her marriage will last monogamously into the eternities.

     My Christian friends are not sure how to reconcile the Bible verses saying (1) what is bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and (2) in the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. But they definitely see the two possibilities as being either (1) their monogamous marriage continues from this life to the next through the power of their love for each other and God’s blessing on that love, or (2) there is no such thing as marriage, for anyone, after this life–everyone is united in the incomprehensible joy of God’s love.

     My Mormon friends wonder about three possibilities. Two are similar to the Christians:
     (1) maybe monogamous marriages continue from this life to the next, or
     (2) maybe something miraculous happens to our understandings and our social structures such that marriage no longer means to us anything remotely like what it currently means to us. (I don’t think this is much different in its practical effect than the Christians believing there is no such thing as marriage after this life.)

     But then for Mormons there is the third possibility:
     (3) what if I have to share? What if I am forced to choose between monogamy and exaltation? What if polygamy is viscerally distasteful to me–does that mean I’m unworthy?

     I wonder, do the Christians envy the LDS for being lucky enough to have prophets open up such glorious possibilities to our minds? Because personally, I envy the Christians who never even have that third option enter their mind as a serious possibility.

     Comment by B — October 25, 2005 @ 4:56 pm

102. There are no other Major Christian religions that preach any sort of marriage in the afterlife. It is not part of any major Christian Sect’s Doctrine (Catholic, Methodist, Presbetyrian, Lutheran, Anglican or Adventist). Some new age christian churches might preach it, but in general if you study the religions listed, you will find very defined doctrines that marriage is for this life only.

     Comment by Lyle — October 25, 2005 @ 5:22 pm

103. Add Baptist to that list also.

     Comment by Lyle — October 25, 2005 @ 5:23 pm

104. Before I say anything else I will disclose that the idea of my husband taking another wife literally makes me nauseous. That said, I’ll move on.
     I tend to think that one’s ability to deal with this or any church doctrine really boils down to what is the most current revealed doctrine (named as such) and what state our testimony of Heavenly Fathers love for us is in. The most current revealed doctrine is the Proclamation on the Family, in which, the Quorum proclaims that “…marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God…” To me that says that it doesn’t matter what the Gen. Auth. of that time said about marriage, I’m supposed to be in a monogamous relationship. Secondly there was a time when I felt that Heavenly Father loved me only as a daughter-in-law. That his only attatchment to me was through the son of His that I had married. When I gained a testimony that He loved me so much that no sin I could commit, no success someone else had, and no change in my relationships could alter the depth of his affection then I learned that every inequity I had lived with was either made by mortals or seen through the lens of my misconceptions. Although polygamy unsettles me as nothing else can, I know that Heavenly Father loves me and that it breaks His heart when I cry. He would never ask me to enter a polygamous marriage unless I would benefit from it.

     Comment by Andermom — October 25, 2005 @ 5:35 pm

105. Too much attention is given to the nuclear family when we talk about sealing. The sealing is to bind us all to God and make us his heirs, i.e. members of his family. We can’t get that without love and it is love for “the least” of our brothers and sisters. To be sure the unity we find in marriage is a metaphor for our unity with Christ but it is a unity that comes from sacrifice and service not “soulmate”-ism.

     Comment by GeorgeD — October 25, 2005 @ 5:37 pm

106. Lyle, honey, I’m not talking about official doctrines. I’m talking about the real beliefs that real people (my friends) have. I realize that it is very important to you that your actual beliefs be 100% in line with the official doctrine of the governing body of your denomination.

     Very few Christians feel anywhere near as strongly about that as you do. My Christian friends only care about their beliefs being in line with what the Bible and the Holy Spirit tell them…if that conflicts with official doctrine, they don’t care, and they often don’t even know. If they end up casting a dissenting vote against their pastor or the larger governing body for their denomination due to doctrinal differences, they don’t fear for one second that their salvation or exaltation might hang in the balance. And if some LDS friend of theirs tells them there might be polygamy in the next life, they don’t waste a second worrying about it possibly being true. I feel so sorry for them that they don’t have the blessings of answers provided by modern-day prophets…or do I?

     Comment by B — October 25, 2005 @ 6:09 pm

107. “I turned down an invitation to be a plural wife in this life (a story I still find fascinating and chilling). ”

     Do tell! I’m sure that is a fascinating story.

     When I was growing up we had a YM/Scout leader that was a little nutso. He would tell us wierd stories in Sunday School that bordered on him saying that he had seen the Savior in real life. We all told our parents, but they kind of laughed it off (nervously). A few years later he was ex-communicated. I found out a few years after that that one of the reasons he was x-ed was that he was soliciting plural wives, even going so far as to corner single sisters at Church (in the hall or in classrooms) and telling them he had had visions and been commanded to take plural wives.

     I’m wondering if your experience was similar, and what the response of the local Church leaders was.

     (Sorry for the threadjack)

     (And sorry once again to Mark, I was feeling “saucy” when I made my previous comment)

     Comment by Talon — October 26, 2005 @ 11:40 am

108. I’m with Talon, Laurie, I’d like to hear it. I think we need a break from all the hard hitting subjects…a good story dealing with romance (maybe?), religion and polygamy would be a great read!!!

     Comment by princessleah_mom — October 26, 2005 @ 12:33 pm

109. Do you ignore polyandry because LDS ignores polyandry? And group marriage? There is more to polygamy than polygyny.

     Comment by flaime — November 2, 2005 @ 9:44 am

110. I’m a male church convert of 40 years membership.. I’ve never understood the plural wife bit either, so over the years I’ve just put it in the too hard basket and said “It’s taking me all my time to understand one wife and raise six kids successfully, and I don;’t think I can do any more. It leaves me no free time and now there are 15 grand-children not to mention spouses. That makes a birthday every second week in our family. What happens as it gets bigger?”
     My attitude is to wait and see how it all panns out, and if I’m asked to take more wives on board I’ll say, “OK if you say so but maybe only one more and I better have a good look at her before I get into this thing.”
     My problem has been terminal cancer, I’m 65 and with the blessings of the Lord I seem to have beaten it! So I just wake up each morning and say “Thanks I’m still here.” You see I’m simply trying to stay around to be a support to my one earthky wife and I’m in no hurry to rush headlong into Eternity; whatever it is!.

     Comment by Cliff Broome — November 13, 2005 @ 7:29 am

111. I spent quite a bit of time at college studying gender and Islam and the impact of political Islam on gender roles, and so of course I studied polygyny in this cultural context. I remember reading several accounts by sister wives, some of whom were very happy with the arrangement, and some of whom were miserable. Largely it seemed to depend on the husband. If a husband was cruel or domineering, the sister wives were able to turn to each other for support and intimacy. I vividly remember one first-person narrative in which a woman in her 80s spoke with some emotion about the intimate sexual relation she had with her sister wife. While neither woman would consider herself a lesbian, that sort of physical contact was the only thing that kept them going during their marriage to an abusive, emotionally distant man. On the other hand, if a husband was kind and caring, his first wife often felt betrayed when he took subsequent wives.

     I also had one professor who had spent time in one of those rare cultures where women are permitted to take many husbands. Far from encouraging or allowing a greater equality in sharing household chores, it meant that women in these cultures had to cook for and clean up after several men in several different homes.

     Comment by Quimby — November 13, 2005 @ 10:08 pm

112. Sorry - I sent this before I really got to the point of the post, which was to say that yes, cultural differences definitely matter–but even in cultures where it’s common (or more common) it’s still a hot-button topic. And in cultures where women carry a disproportinate share of the burden of housework (read: most of them) one wife-many husbands just wouldn’t work, not unless you wanted even *less* time to yourself.

     Comment by Quimby — November 13, 2005 @ 10:35 pm

113. I read on the site several references to “sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive” This just doesn’t wash as an argument for Plurality of wives because modern economics tells us to simply find a way to make more eggs cheaper, if that’s what is wanted and they are in short supply or high demand. …..

     eg: Man made diamonds are set to flood the market now that created emeralds and rubys have been such good successes. Soon in theory, we can have all the diamonds we desire, only the price will be aritfically controlled by marketing people and the strategy of limiting the quantity available for sale.at any one time

     The way I look at it is…. “If Father in heaven says its a good thing and the way to go……….. Then that’s good enough for me, because I know that I have limited understanding and experience, and everything he has said to date has worked according to my way of assessing things, All that is left for us to do is to find out how to make it work best.in our own particular case”

     What about shooting for the top of the Celestial Rewards and making sure we qualify by following the correct path as taught, Then if we want it we have got it!. If, as taught, it is good, then we have; it no sweat……….. You know more choices become open to you, which is good……….. If, on the other hand, at the very last moment you don’t want it; then by all means say so and pull out,

     Comment by Cliff Broome — November 14, 2005 @ 5:55 am

114. Actually Cliff, diamonds aren’t all that uncommon.

     But the world market is virtually dominated by one company (I think it’s De Beers, but I know that isn’t how you spell it). That company keeps the supply artificially scarce, and the price of diamonds high.

     Comment by Seth Rogers — November 14, 2005 @ 7:20 am

115. I find it interesting that most of the males here find it “easier” than the majority of the women to consider having to possibly live the law of polygamy. Although I think there are some wonderful, compassionate males out there (my husband included), they will never fully understand why it is so hard as a woman to consider and contemplate a situation, whether here or in the next life, where we would be asked to “share” our husbands.

     Since the male isn’t (and hasn’t) been asked to live this law (although there are some societies that the wife has multiple husbands, it is rare, and has not been “sanctioned” by the Lord and the church) males are going to view it differently. Although males, like my husband and Cliff Broome, say that they don’t want another wife, that it would be too time consuming, too emotionally draining, etc., it still isn’t the same issues a female has to deal with. So although I applaud men like them, and am grateful my husband is against the idea (partly because he knows how badly it would hurt me), it is still going to be easier for a man to swallow the idea.

     Personally, I don’t worry about it anymore. I use to, and it made my heart hurt so badly. But after a lot of prayer and talking with my husband, I decided that it doesn’t affect me now and won’t in my lifetime, and I don’t believe the Lord will ask me to live it, ever. So, although I don’t find it to be a huge dilemma for me personally, I don’t think men have the right to say, “Women, get over it. In time you will understand”. (I know that most of you great males here haven’t come out and blatantly said that, but I hope you understand that it is going to be tremendously more difficult for us to sacrifice in the name of polygamy than it is for you.)

     Comment by princessleah_mom — November 14, 2005 @ 4:31 pm

116. Princessleah_mom–There was polyandry as well as polygyny in the early LDS church. Just FYI.

     Comment by LisaB — November 14, 2005 @ 5:38 pm

117. The way I look at it is…. “If Father in heaven says its a good thing and the way to go……….. Then that’s good enough for me, because I know that I have limited understanding and experience, and everything he has said to date has worked according to my way of assessing things, All that is left for us to do is to find out how to make it work best.in our own particular case”

     That of course assumes that Father in Heaven actually said so. I frankly don’t believe it. Way too much crap has been foisted on humans over history by leaders claiming to be speaking God’s will, prophets notwithstanding.

     Besides, God, who not only hates but steadfastly refuses to operate by means of compulsion, will of course never force anyone to practice polygamy, so rest easy there princessleah_mom!

     Comment by Rich — November 14, 2005 @ 8:37 pm

118. What about if every LDS wife converted her husband; every LDS mother raised faithful sons; and all LDS women who don’t find a guy in motality were to find a male convert each ….voila, simple… no polygamy!

     To Seth….. I know natural diamonds are plentiful we just think they a rare because we a taught that way. Diamonds are stockpiled to keep the price up The Russiabs have enough stashed away to give every man woman and child a nice little handful; not to mention the other stockpiles around the globe.. Maybe I could have used a better analogy for my illustration like “alexandrite” or “gem ruby”

     Comment by Cliff Broome — November 15, 2005 @ 4:25 am

119. Christ is the bridegroom. We all share Him. Perhaps this is the “eternal” nature of polygamy. Just like “eternal punishment” (God’s punishment). I don’t mind that each one of you has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that doesn’t include me. In fact, I’m glad you do. But ditto on, “Don’t marry my husband.”

     Comment by Northernwoman — November 20, 2005 @ 2:12 am

120. Besides, God, who not only hates but steadfastly refuses to operate by means of compulsion, will of course never force anyone to practice polygamy, so rest easy there princessleah_mom!

     I’ve been thinking about this comment a lot the past couple of weeks, and I’ve come to the conclusion that it sounds nice & happy, but is just a phrase to make us feel nice & happy.

     Reading the book club selection, it is very obvious Emma was FORCED to practice polygamy. Joseph entered into plural marriages without her consent & knowledge, and when she continued to have a hard time accepting it, she was “threatened” that if she didn’t consent, he’d have HUNDREDS of wives. (p 152 for those of you reading the book) If your options are, 1. accept this or 2. don’t & be damned and have it happen anyway, that seems like a fair amount of compulsion.

     Comment by mindy — December 12, 2005 @ 4:37 pm

121. And how’s this “And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord.”

     What a choice.

     Comment by mindy — December 12, 2005 @ 4:39 pm

122. What a choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m afraid that’s how it goes for every body on earth & every aspect of life………those who take all the “freedoms” they desire end up in “captivity” …hard to stomache but true

     That’s how things go in all aspects of life…want a car? pay for it ……if you steal it you go to jail…….eat incorectly & get fat and/or sick (maybe not today be eventually you will suffer)

     Want eternal life? then obey all the commandments (don’t miss any) and then endure to the end (right to the very end) …..its all clear cut …if you don’t like it go to outer darkness don’t pass go and don’t collect $200

     Comment by Cliff Broome — December 16, 2005 @ 5:59 pm

123. Poligamy didn’t came from GOD.
     Read the bible, read the book of Mormon, take your own conclusions. It just came from men. And I am very surprised that
     they didn’t make us to use “burkas” to help them to cope with
     their “temptations”
     Wake up mormons ladies !! Who said Salomon was right???
     He killed his brother to have his girlfriend…and we know David was right neither having Urias wife.
     One of the man in the mob that killed Joseph Smith was a
     brother of a girl that Joseph was courting.
     Poligamy had just one reason : to justify lust

     Comment by Sister Angelica — March 29, 2006 @ 10:24 pm

124. I feel sorry for your lack of knowlege and faith Sister Angelica. You couldn’t be more wrong!

     Comment by JKR — March 29, 2006 @ 10:38 pm

125. sister angelica is right alhto tht name creeps me out…polygamy - how come women go along with it?? is this like the dark ages or something …oh yeh i spos it is the US….

     Comment by imnotmormonandirock — May 15, 2006 @ 10:27 am

126. I very strongly agree with Angelica. I am not LDS, however I have been studying the religion for years. I first studied the religion when I first came to Utah from France. It was a very strange religion to me, most of France being Catholic. Although it was strange I was very interested in learning about it and at one point, early in my life I considered joining the LDS faith. I took my time though. My grandfather taught me to always question things, and that I should never be afraid to question my faith. If I can not question my faith what faith do I have to begin with. The Almighty gave us magnificent brains, lets use them, he wont be offended, he knows we are human and it is in our nature to question. I believe that polygamy is wrong. Picture God in a human state of being. Could you see God having six wives?
     I bet not. All I can say is that I believe polygamy was not created by God. The LDS church believes that in heaven a man could have several wives. Nobody knows the truth, but why is it that the LDS church doesn’t beleive it cant be the other way around. The fact that it can only be one man and several women kind of hints to me this was a man made life style. If the church was founded by a woman I’m sure the church would believe today that women have many husbands in heaven. God is not sexist, God doesn’t provide one gender with more opportunity that the other. The earthly world is unfair. Heaven is fair to everyone.

     Comment by Marie Renee Fontaine — May 24, 2006 @ 10:12 am

127. Sorry, Im writing again,
     I was reading some earlier input dated October 21, 2005 by fMhLisa where she admits that the whole thing sucks about how our female relationships are subservant and dependant on men. I couldn’t agree more, if the whole polygamy in heaven thing is even true. And then I read the next comment that a woman named Mango made. She stated, “Life sucks, get used to it”. Obviously you mormon ladies are depressed with your own beliefs. You know, you dont have to believe in this one faith just because it was the only thing taught to you. If you’re so miserable then choose from the millions of faiths around the world that could make you happier, which would make you a better person. You know what, life does suck! Like I said before its unfair. fMhLisa was talking about her life after death, being sealed to a man for eternity and it being his choice. LIFE sucks, do you people believe that heaven sucks too. Shame on you to believe that Gods kingdom will suck. Shame on you to express such worry when it comes to your after life in heaven. Stop believing in everything that people told you and believe in what you feel is right. Reading everyones input, I can tell this is a group of smart people, intelligent brainwashed people. God doesnt want us to be miserable

     Comment by Marie Renee Fontaine — May 24, 2006 @ 1:17 pm

128. 127: “I can tell this is a group of smart people, intelligent brainwashed people.”

     Oooh! I want that for my tagline. “smart, intelligent, brainwashed people.”

     Thing is, it’s so hard to keep up with the brainwashing. Not to mention all the brain dirty dishes. But it’s worth it, I tell you — because who wants a cluttered, dusty, unkempt brain, all with old pizza boxes and beer cans in the corner? What would the neighbors think?

     Comment by Kaimi — May 24, 2006 @ 1:24 pm

129. I just found the frame of 1983 Transam up on blocks in my brain. It was in the corner by the old chicken coop, neither of which has been brain washed in at least a decade.

     Comment by fMhLisa — May 24, 2006 @ 5:41 pm

130. oh the wit… 128 and 129 made me smile! You guys are great!

     Comment by Leslie — May 24, 2006 @ 5:56 pm

131. If all of the people on this website were born and Raised in Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, Canada, or South America I am sure you would all have different beliefs and not many of you would beleive in the Mormon religion and all of the random stipulations that come along with it. Sarcasm is a good cover up for weakness. I’m never to afraid to question my beliefs. It has only made me a stronger believer.

     Comment by Marie Renee Fontaine — May 30, 2006 @ 2:23 pm

132. I’m never to afraid to question my beliefs. It has only made me a stronger believer.

     I imagine fMhLisa could say the same thing.

     I’m confused about the context for your attack. My impression of the post was the exact opposite of yours–that Lisa is a Mormon who is willing to examine, question, and doubt the “random stipulations” in her religion, and to object to them when they simply seem wrong.

     Comment by Kiskilili — May 30, 2006 @ 4:34 pm

133. Sorry if what I was expressing seemed like an attack. I did not mean for it to come across that way. I can clearly see that she is asking questions and making opinions about her church. I can see that she is upset with a few things about the church as I would be too. When I first came across this website it looked as if a lot of women were upset about what their church believes, and they have been expressing that, and I believe people should be able to express their opinions. What I’m trying to say is, youre asking all of these complicated questions about being married in heaven and a lot of “What ifs” come up. I’v heard a lot of opinions and a lot of feeling about what they wish wasnt part of the church. I guess Im just curious if these women are upset because they dont agree with the church and its male dominated ways but still choose to believe in it. That is just what doesn’t make sense to me. I really am not trying to offend anyone, and I’ve enjoyed reading the opinions on this page. Could somebody just tell me, What do you believe in? I dont believe in a church that makes women feel less than men, and the other way around. Thats why Im no longer Catholic. Again, sorry if I offended you, I guess Im just trying to comprehend this all.

     Comment by Marie Renee Fontaine — May 30, 2006 @ 5:12 pm

134. Marie said,

     “Could somebody just tell me, What do you believe in?”

     Great question (and you know when someone says that, the question is going to be better than the answer!). I’m guessing that there are at least as many opinions as, and probably more than, there are people around here :> Sorry, I’m sure that’s not very helpful.

     Comment by Eve — May 30, 2006 @ 5:16 pm

135. Good questions! I may not be the best person to answer, since I’m so heretical myself.

     My current opinion is that a) much of what the church does is immoral and much of what the church says is false, but that b) God is nevertheless involved in the church. I really wish I understood why, or what my relationship to the church should be as a result. But I’m completely confused.

     Comment by Kiskilili — May 30, 2006 @ 5:41 pm

136. Marie,
     If you want some generic info, you can go to www.mormon.org. Online blogs give a pretty incomplete (and often stilted) view. Most women I know are at peace in the Church, so don’t assume the views here are the norm. (I know women who struggle, too — I’m not trying to blast the people here, but just saying that this isn’t a representative sample.)

     Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 30, 2006 @ 10:13 pm

137. “Sarcasm is a good cover up for weakness.”

     I’d call it more flippant than sarcastic. And the thing is, what you said was pretty insulting, you can’t tell me I’m brainwashed and expect me to jump up and down with joy (see now I’m nudging toward sarcasm).

     If you were asking for a sincere reply, you should refrain from name calling. My response wasn’t about cover-up, it was about weariness.

     “I’m never to afraid to question my beliefs. It has only made me a stronger believer.”

     I’m very often afraid to question my beliefs, because really questioning the things we hold most sacred is scary and painful. And when I’m not afraid, then I’m afraid that I’ve got some beliefs that I’ve forgotten to question that I should’ve been questioning. But I whole heartedly agree with your last sentence. Questioning is essencial to stonger belief, I’m just not sure how you got the idea from this post (or this blog) that I don’t question.

     That’s all I’ve got time for tonight. I’m babysitting a “found” dog and making flyers to put up around the neighborhood so we can find his home.

     Comment by fMhLisa — May 30, 2006 @ 10:56 pm

138. To fMhLisa:
     Dear, beautiful Lisa: I am now an old lady and just discovered these posts. You sound like a lovely, intelligent young lady. I was very impressed by your thoughts on the matter of polygamy and the description of your love for your husband. I sincerely hope that love prevails over the remainder of your years on this earth. I cannot claim to know the mind of God, but one thing I do know with my own perfect knowledge is that He knows us inside and out. He knows every detail of our sacrifices and I have my own knowledge of His deep love, reverence and honour that He feel for us. Now, these next comment are not to be confused with that preceeding personal knowledge, but are my own speculations. I think that when we get to the other side, there are going to be enough surprises to go around for us all. Eventually, when the world has passed away and is renewed, after the very last judgement, when the Gods will be seperated from the rest, They will thrive in the center of Their own universe. I speculate that ALL will be equal in love, validation and importance. All will love All and All will be One. I am not talking about debaucherie, but of a LOVE for one another that transcends in power and in righteousness all that we can imagine at this time. I had better not “speculate” in writing any further, but you get the point. Women need not to feel inferior to men… though I know this is the way of this world and even in the church. But I do KNOW that God does view us with the deepest ADMIRATION and REVERENCE. Now, put that in your husband’s sandwich or in your 5′ talk at Sacrament Meeting! We women are PIVOTAL in that Center where the GODS reside and I KNOW that great honor shall be rendered us.

     Comment by Frannie Zuller — May 31, 2006 @ 3:16 am

139. to fMhLisa and to anyone else I have offended
     Like I said before, I am sorry if I had offended anyone and my messege was not meant to come across as rude.
     Let me just leave it at this: I totaly agree with Frannie Zullers Message above. ” Eventually, when the world has passed away and is renewed, after the very last judgement, when the Gods will be seperated from the rest, They will thrive in the center of Their own universe. I speculate that ALL will be equal in love, validation and importance. All will love All and All will be One. I am not talking about debaucherie, but of a LOVE for one another that transcends in power and in righteousness all that we can imagine at this time.”

     Comment by Marie Renee Fontaine — May 31, 2006 @ 1:04 pm

140. Interesting comments here.

     Comment by IzyMoe — July 23, 2006 @ 8:41 pm

141. thank God I’m Catholicand part of the true and eternal Church protected by the Holy Spirit!

     Comment by Lor — August 18, 2006 @ 7:18 am

142. For anyone interested:

     There is a compliation of quotes about plural marriage from early church leaders here
     http://www.4thefamily.us/files/active/1/plural%20marriage
     %20references%20long.txt
     (may have to cut and paste link)

     There are also other documents from the early church period re: plural marriage here
     http://www.4thefamily.us/documents

     If you want to download them, read the instructions at the top of the page. The instructions differ depending on which browser you use but all are available for download.

     Someone in the early part of this blog mentioned that early church leaders called “plural marriage” necessary. The quotes you are looking for are in the first link.

     Cheers!

     Comment by AtPeace — August 29, 2006 @ 12:07 am

143. Great review of a new book out
     http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650192851,00.html

     Wells’ story a scholarly work
     By Dennis Lythgoe
     Deseret Morning News
     AN ADVOCATE FOR WOMEN: THE PUBLIC LIFE OF EMMELINE B. WELLS, 1870-1920, by Carol Cornwall Madsen, Deseret Book/BYU Press, 498 pages, $21.95, softcover

     It is one of the mythical beliefs in American history that Mormon women were controlled or subjugated due to the practice of polygamy. In fact, early Mormon women were among the most accomplished of any in the history of the United States.
     Mormon women from early Utah became doctors, lawyers, teachers, writers, businesspeople and were in fact active in all the professions. Many of them attended graduate schools in Eastern states to acquire the credentials they needed.
     “An Advocate for Women” is the story of Emmeline B. Wells, one of the most noteworthy of early Utah women, and it is told with clarity and impressive scholarship by Carol Cornwall Madsen, professor of history at Brigham Young University.
     Madsen is careful to point out that this is not a conventional biography — the life story of Wells. But it is rather “to show how a young girl from a small mill village in rural Massachusetts was able, through the strength of her convictions and determination, to transform herself into a self-confident, nationally known spokeswoman for women and for her faith.”
     A devoted family woman, Wells was also a poet, a businesswoman, a religious woman, and “a thinker and a doer,” according to Madsen. At the age of 82, she became general president of the Relief Society of the LDS Church, but her greatest accomplishments probably came in her feminist efforts to acquire political rights for women.
     In part through her efforts in the latter part of the 19th century, women in Utah acquired the right to vote (Utah women voted 50 years before women who lived in the rest of the country). They also had the right to own property, the right to attend institutions of higher learning, and they had increased economic opportunities and leadership roles in a variety of religious and civic movements.
     Wells left a huge written legacy in her role as editor of the Woman’s Exponent, the LDS women’s newsletter, for 37 years. She also left numerous letters, magazine articles, a volume of poetry and 47 diaries.
     Emmeline, a tiny woman at 5 feet and just short of 100 pounds, was married to Nauvoo bishop Newel K. Whitney in 1845, and they had two children, Isabel and Melvina. But Whitney died in 1850.
     In 1852, she entered into plural marriage when she was wed to Daniel H. Wells, who already had six wives. Wells was a counselor to LDS Church President Brigham Young, as well as mayor of Salt Lake City.
     He and his first six wives lived in “the big house” on South Temple Street in Salt Lake City; Emmeline and her five children (three from Wells) lived in a smaller home a few blocks away on State Street and 300 South. She often wrote of how little she saw of her husband, but he provided high-level security for all his family.
     Complete with photographs, index and footnotes listing her sources, Madsen has done a magnificent job in portraying this interesting — and very busy — Mormon woman.

     Comment by AtPeace — September 24, 2006 @ 2:21 am

144. You know, J stapley did a great post at BCC (I think) maybe a year or so ago about how being in polygamous relationships actually helped some women have much more freedom and flexability than their contemporaries (or that’s what I took from his post, I guess). This of course being a product of the fact that they lived in a highly sexist and unfair world to begin with, a world in which women had very few opportunites or rights. I’d link to his post, but I dont have time at the moment, I’m sure you could find it with a few minutes of searching the BCC archives.

     Of course it is wonderful that these women were able to make the best of their life situations in the culture and times during which they lived, but that doesn’t make polygamy (as such) any more palpable for me personally.

     Comment by fMhLisa — September 24, 2006 @ 11:06 am

145. fmhLisa-

     That’s an interesting point. I agree with you that I don’t see it as a good justification for polygamy.

     I wonder how many of us in modern times have done the same? I mean seeing that we feel opressed in the church, but that we can be leaders in the world. I know that I have felt that way, and have decided to avoid making the church into everything I am.

     Comment by Zud — September 24, 2006 @ 12:43 pm

146. Then there is this article from a woman who claims plural marriage was the ultimate feminist lifestyle for her

     http://www.4thefamily.us/feminist_polygamy

     Comment by AtPeace — September 24, 2006 @ 11:24 pm

147. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints puts high priority on spending time with your family. TIME is only measured unto men. Try to imagine time spent with someone not being an occlusion to spending time with someone else. Try to realize that there is no such thing as “opportunity cost” in the Celestial Kingdom. Most of all, have “faith” that celestial marriage is better than earthly marriage. Get out of the rut of thinking like a child does after they see there Mom kiss their dad–”EEW, yuck” Believe that your spiritual maturity will be higher than it is right now, and it grows by faith. The Lord has not failed me yet, I doubt he will fail me there, nor my wife.

     Comment by James Cutler — October 5, 2006 @ 1:42 pm

148. Thank you, manaen, for #57 and your link to the address on this topic by Elder Oaks. I have just read the first part of it, but I downloaded and printed it, and will enjoy the remainder later.

     I had read the words of the prophets saying that no man who could live the principle and refused could qualify for the CK. So I was a little concerned about the importance of choosing correctly who was the one holding the keys.

     I just want to throw out that I have been studying the practice out of curiosity for the last several months. Although I’ve come to the conclusion that “by their fruits ye shall know them” leads to the conclusion that the main body of Saints are led by the true prophet, and that leads to the conclusion that JC withdrew permission to practice it with the third manifesto.

     That said, those who believe otherwise have a very interesting courtship tradition that so many posting here seem not to know of. They don’t date. The girls pretty much decide when they feel ready to marry, and they usually choose the man they want to marry. They go to their father and get his approval to wed, and then to their “prophet” for his approval of both their desire to wed and their choice of husband. He then informs the chosen man that he is to take this additional bride. So the poly girls feel that it gives them power to choose. Some choose to marry outside of polygamy, and they are free to do so, although that divides them from their communities to a large degree.

     They put it this way. We believe that every woman should be free to marry the man of her choice.

     I find it a little strange that women, LDS women, view that as so unfair to women.

     Also, they talk of poly marriage as a relationship between all parties, so that decisions must be made by consensus of all. It follows that women have more feminine voting power. They say that they do have jealousy issues sometimes, but that they love their sister wives so much that they become as (or more) concerned that the sister wife gets the loving she needs from the husband, than for their own needs. They also get the close friendship bond that women need, which the best of men don’t do well to satisfy. Some monogamous women find close friends and meet that need, but few do, and nearly all poly wives do.

     It is easy to look at the practice and see sexuality. But HF is not concerned much about that, I think. He is concerned about teaching His children to be more Christlike in their ability to love. Poly living seems to be the graduate school of loving selflessly. Not just being concerned about the feelings of one spouse, but many, and being a parent to the children of many wives. This is the crucible that refines the spirit into pure Christlike stuff. At least, that is what I’ve been able to make of it.

     On a personal level, I’ve had one wife divorce me, and take my children from me. Both my first and second wives had children by earlier marriages, so I’ve had two sets of stepchildren, as well as three boys of my own. I’ve loved both wives and all the children, pretty much the same. They haven’t all loved me the same, but that was their business.

     I’m glad I haven’t been called to have a second simultaneous wife (yet). I need more time to work out my repentance and purification without that level of stress just yet.

     Also, my current wife had an Uncle she was close to, who later got excited about polygyny, and caused great pain to his family and children, and much troubles. So she reacts with great alarm to my curiousity about it.

     I think it likely that it will become legal in the USA again soon. But the Church will not instantly return to the practice. We will wait on the Lord’s command. But I suppose it likely that the Lord will command in His time. It is, after all, a true principle that has been commanded in all dispensations.

     I hope I’m ready, if I don’t manage to die before that day comes.

     Comment by Trueheart — February 19, 2007 @ 7:09 pm

149. The whole lack of men in the CK argument doesn’t really mesh with the fact that President Kimball said that children that die before the age of accountability will be exalted. More boys than girls are born, and yet more girls than boys grow up to adulthood. Boys have a higher infant mortality rate. That’s a lot of single exalted males to set the balance straight, as long as you don’t mind having to potty train your husband and teach him to tie his shoes.

     Comment by Christian — February 20, 2007 @ 1:01 am

150. I’m extremely fascinated by polygamy. Over the past three years I’ve become especially interested in other forms of polygamy, especially African-Muslim polygamy. I don’t know what it is about it; maybe I like to study polygamy for the same reason that some people like to go to horror movies, i.e. to get a good scare/thrill but go home feeling safe in the knowledge that it won’t really happen to them. I really don’t know.

     I guess I’ve been okay with polygamy in our Church’s history provided that it stays there, deep in the pages of history books. The thought of it ever “making a comeback” terrifies me. And I don’t even want to think about the possibility of me finding myself in a polygamous union, a la my husband (provided I ever have one) marries someone after I die and I find out about it when I show up for my happy exalted eternity and find my husband waiting for me with another woman.

     I’ve wondered sometimes what polygamous Saints thought of the Manifesto. Did they hear that announcement and think, “darn! Wish I had lived post 1890!” Did Emma Smith Bidamon, who fervently argued that the Church could not go on with polygamy as a tenet, turn to Joseph and say, “I told you so”? I wonder what Jane Manning, that great Black pioneer who was sealed as a “servant” to Joseph Smith after turning down the opportunity to be “adopted” by Joseph and Emma, thought about the Manifesto. Did she think, “why didn’t I get the chance to have an eternal husband?” Or maybe she looked at women like Emma, who hated polygamy but experienced it anyways, and thought, “better to be without than to share a spouse”?

     Most of all, I’ve wondered what I would have done had I been a 19th century Saint. I love the Church and have always known it to be true. But after reading books like Mormon Enigma and knowing how Emma (my hero) regarded it, I really can’t say that I know for sure how I would handle it. Part of me thinks that I would have been attracted to the polygamy-free, Smith-led Reorganized Church (although after reading in “From Mission to Madness” that the RLDS Church believed back then that God is truine despite what Joseph Smith experienced in the First Vision, I might have had trouble with them, too). Would I have been a Brighamite, a Josephite, or neither?

     Overall, I guess I’m grateful that I live now and don’t have to lose sleep over these questions and issues.

     Comment by Marie — February 20, 2007 @ 6:07 pm

151. The reason so many of you have a hard time accepting the idea of polygamy in the celestial kingdom is because it just isn’t true.
     It doesn’t make sence on any level. Has anyone ever heard this taught by a General Authority or read it in a lesson manual?
     This is not a doctrine that is taught by the church today. Remember sisters, when something is true we know it. There is no need to question or seek for explanations. It just makes sense. This does not.

     Comment by Karen — February 21, 2007 @ 12:34 pm

152. Even if polygamy were a *fact* in the Celestial Kingdom, it doesn’t follow that we should regard it as a doctrine now. Doctrine is information provided through God’s direction, for our benefit here on earth. Satan doubtlessly has access to at least some truths that God has chosen to not reveal to us yet; if someone obtained this knowledge, would we call it “doctrine”?

     I’m not saying stop thinking about non-edifying truths, or to block out inconvenient knowledge. I’m simply positing that polygamy may or may not be truth, and that currently, it’s not really part of the doctrine, because it’s not part of our lives and faith.

     Comment by Christian — February 21, 2007 @ 4:16 pm

153. (it appears I can’t post the links to the videos all at one time - so am going to try them in sections)

     Many plural families have rich and diverse lives with plenty of love, support and companionship.

     It seems odd that in this day and age where so many varied relationships are allowed that the most highly blessed marriage system of the Old Testament would not be permitted. Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel, was the Father of the House of Israel, his house. This home included four wives and 12 sons and at least one daughter, Dinah that is spoken of. She did some pretty remarkable things – something about a horn and walls….

     Here are some links to teens who spoke up at a rally in Salt Lake last summer
     Amanda
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHdfY6LULY
     Catherine
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VcIPRJOE5Q

     Comment by AtPeace — April 16, 2007 @ 10:04 am

154. part 2…
     Three more teens from the rally
     Christian
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjZvHP3R9xQ
     Jessica
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm57gOa6wYA
     Kerri
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oHW5j8ZxxI

     Comment by AtPeace — April 16, 2007 @ 10:06 am

155. part 3….

     Tyler
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOS9LWBXw7c
     Velan
     http://youtube.com/watch?v=9hCZjLk3-Jg

     Also, recently a UNLV basketball player made news in the NY Times because of his large family support (grins)
     http://www.4thefamily.us/unlv_polygamy

     Cheers!

     Comment by AtPeace — April 16, 2007 @ 11:35 am

156. You are a very talented writer. I just had to say that, as a freelance writer, I appreciate the talents of others. I was baptized into the mormon religion, but have been inactive for many years. I absolutely agree with your belief about the idea of polygamy in the afterlife. I can not even wrap my mind around the sexism in the Bible. However, I believe that the Catholic church had much to do with the way the bible was originally translated from Greek. There are over 40 different words for “love”. Surely we are lacking something in translation.

     Comment by April — April 11, 2008 @ 4:29 pm

157. you’re a smart woman…

     Comment by belle landry — April 15, 2008 @ 2:28 pm

158. Are there more female spirits than male to account for this apparent disparity? Does everyone get plural spouses, or just a few select men?

     these are the questions I have for plural anything…if there is a 50/50 chance at having XX/XY how does this math add up?

     If you have 100 people. 50 XX and 50 XY that is even.

     just make one plural so 1 xy to 2 XX, your even is no more. Where do the extra XY’s go?? If this was what God intented wouldn’t he have made birthrates more in line with uneven bonds??

     Disclaimer here–I am and always will be a faithful Catholic. I am greatful and thank God for this! I could NOT do it!!!

     Comment by Melodee — April 17, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

159. April,

     As a Catholic I am there with you.

     I believe that the Catholic church had much to do with the way the bible was originally translated from Greek

     I do think that old church and sometimes the new Church (called Vatican II) does much up the teachings of Christ.

     One example is the lost scrolls–lost or hidden I ask! How did we lose them I would like to go back in time to see that answer!

     Comment by Melodee — April 17, 2008 @ 11:05 pm

160. Two and a half years later and people are still enjoying your wise and amusing words! I’m a happy Methodist and chuckled at your delight at being a descendant of polygamous folks but having (in my opinion) the good sense to not want that for yourself.

     Comment by Tracy — April 21, 2008 @ 11:49 am

161. fMhLisa, Interesting thread. Found it perusing the internet one day, I’ve read your article and many but not all of the comments here, and a lot of things come to mind. I’m going to be very bold and straight forward, not to offend, but to show the truth. I will reference everything I quote. Many who view polygamy similiar to how you do, do not understand the character nor nature of God. God is a polygamist and if you study church history and even the scriptures you will see it. The problem is, many will keep themselves out of the Celestial Kingdom because they are ashamed of the gospel of Christ. Could you say that you would feel comfortable sitting down with God, Abraham, Issac, And Jacob (Israel) and their Many Wives, together in the Kingdom, nope, you would be ashamed and embarrassed, not to mention terribly uncomfortable at how perfectly acceptable it is to them. Further, if you think that God has some special plan for just you that differs from everyone else, you will find you are sadly mistaken. You must realize that God does not change, EVER, see Mormon 9:9, Malachi 3:6, Isaiah 40:8, Mormon 8:18, D&C 20:17;
     and therefore His ordinances and gospel can never be altered despite what you have been fed in the church. I’ll back up my comments by one whom you claim is a prophet of God, and see if you’ll accept his words: “It was the design of the councils of heaven before the world was, that the principles and laws of the priesthood should be predicated upon the gathering of the people in every age of the world. Jesus did everything to gather the people, and they would not be gathered, and He therefore poured out curses upon them. Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 308.) Before the world was!!
     “We all admit that the gospel has ordinances, and if so, had it not always ordinances, and were not its ordinances always the same?” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 59.)

     Order in House of God Always the Same:

     “The Order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 91.)

     The above quotes don’t even permit that the ordinances may be changed by revelation - BECAUSE God will NEVER change them, IT IS MAN who has done this.

     Next you may read D&C 132. Its still in there, and its as valid a revelation as the day it was received from Heaven. Verses 4 and 5 make it quite clear, that if you don’t abide the new and everlasting covenant (plural marriage) you will never receive a blessing at God’s hand AND you will be Damned! Joseph Smith revealed if from Heaven, and yet you and other mormons think it doesn’t apply to you.

     If you read the scriptures and started internalizing it for yourself you would start to see the true state of things. For instance read Mormon 8:38-41 and where it says that the Holy Church of God is polluted, you will most likely begin to deceive yourself and say it some other church, not my church. So it begs the question, just how many HOLY CHURCH’S OF GOD are there? Get sober and start to realize that the sword of vengeance hanging over your head is not some joke, or some analogy or symbol that means something else, it MEANS WHAT IS SAYS!

     Brigham young said this about the economy of Heaven, and if you don’t believe it, it won’t hurt God one bit, it will only hurt yourself:
     “The religion of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the patriarchs and prophets, Jesus and his Apostles, is the only acknowledged and popular system of religion with the sanctified ones in the presence of the Father and the Son.
     Abraham the polygamist’s religion is the only one popular in heaven. Monogamy, or restriction by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of Heaven.
     Why do we practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to Joseph & the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. It is the only popular religion in heaven.” Journal of Discourses, [1854-1886], J D Vol. 9: 319-322.)

     Heber C. Kimball:
     You might as well deny “Mormonism,” and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose that doctrine, and the whole of them would be damned. What are you opposing it for?
     It is a principle that God has revealed for the salvation of the human family.
     He revealed it to Joseph the Prophet in this our dispensation; and that which he revealed he designs to have carried out by his people.” (Journal of Discourses, [1854-1886], J. D. Vol 5: 202 - 204.)

     Brigham Young again said:
     “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God WHETHER they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state OF BLIND self security, trusting their ETERNAL DESTINY in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation…Let EVERY man and woman know, BY the whisperings of THE SPIRIT of God to themselves, WHETHER their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”
     (Journal of Discourses 9: 150)

     So for those who are going to argue that the Manifesto is a revelation through President Woodruff, Lets look at the language of that for a minute: HOW MANY REVELATIONS DO YOU FIND THAT BEGIN WITH: To whom it may concern:?

     Sorry that just doesn’t fit the pattern of: THUS SAITH THE LORD:
     and for all those who argue and say this is not necessary, you don’t know your scriptures. If you TRULY want to know how God thinks and what He would do, you have got to get deeply acquainted with the scriptures. Salvation is WORK and EFFORT, and you must learn the whole gospel principle by principle, line upon line, precept upon precept to progress. You will never hear these things across the pulpit of the church, because the Leaders today are ASHAMED of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball, and John Taylor, and a slew of the other early brethren who helped found the church, and most importantly they are ashamed of the Gospel of Christ.

     Isaiah spoke of our great sin:
     24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

     Too many today are complacent and think they have Got it made, but let me close with what Joseph Smith said about those who think they can change ordinances, and who are covenant breakers:
     “There are a great many wise men and women too in our midst who are too wise to be taught; therefore they must die in their ignorance, and in the resurrection they will find their mistake. Many seal up the door of heaven by saying, So far God may reveal and I will believe.
     All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fullness of that glory, if they do not lose the whole.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 70.)

     I could continue and prove this out more, but you need to search it out and verify it yourself. Polygamy is a true principle, and is in the same degree, no more difficult than it will be for Men to live the United order. Do not fool yourselves by the cunning words of the devil that you need not live this principle, and thereby seal the door of heaven against you, for God will require it of the faithful if they want to be heirs of His Kingdom.

     Comment by Garrett — October 12, 2008 @ 6:54 pm

162. Garrett:

     Wading through your fundamentalist talking points is quite a chore; and it tends to hide the fundamental flaws of your philosophy: 1) the lack of authority either to expound doctrine or to perform ordinances and, 2) Joseph Smith’s revelation on plural marriage stipulates that a man and a woman who are sealed by proper authority and remain faithful will enter into exaltation and become gods.

     Joseph Smith told his brother Hyrum that if he sealed people without authorization, he would go to hell with all those he sealed. Present day fundamentalists arrogate to themselves authority they do not and cannot have; and claim to seal with that pretended authority. Hyrum had the authority but lacked the permission. Fundamentalists lack both authority and permission. Based on Joseph Smith’s teachings, I have a good idea where they’re headed.

     Alma Allred

     Comment by Alma — October 13, 2008 @ 10:59 am

163. Alma,

     Thank you for your comment. To address your points, which I will say are in fact valid points to be answered, although neither are correct. I will be so bold as to say, first, simply because you are not aware of the authority does not make it cease to exist, it does exist and I know where and who holds such authority and it is not pretended. God is able to do His own work. D&C 132:7 also says there is only one man on the earth at a time who holds this authority, (although it may be delegated to others, as it was to Hyrum) and God has kept his word. I am aware that many fundamentalist groups trace their authority back to the Wooley’s, but this is not the case here.

     2nd please cite your reference for the statement you claim Joseph made, as I am not aware of it, with the particular language you have used. You’ll please notice that I have referenced all of my citations so they may be verified.

     In your second paragraph, I agree with your first two sentences, however I am not associated with any fundamentalist group, although I believe all of the fundamental principles. You would need to explain your comment about “…authority they do not and cannot have.” Again, God can do His own work.

     I will not make presumptions, however by your last name, I would ask if you are a part of the Allred group? I would be happy to continue this discussion off board with much more specifics as to my claims.

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 12:11 pm

164. Dear Garrett,
     I’m sold. Please let me know where I can sign up. I believe if you can just look past my lack of faith, my two children, my unrepentent mouth, my thousands of books that are going to need shelves, my dog who chases her tail, my queer friends, my pinko friends and the near John Birchers, we can be very happy together. Please let sister-wives one, two and three know that I am coming. I’m a real good baker and soon my constant back sass and irrepressable sarcasm will have you and the wives wondering what you ever did without me.
     Yours in the Principal,

     Crazy Woman Creek
     p.s. My husband is coming too, is this a problem?

     Comment by crazywomancreek — October 14, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

165. @crazywomancreek -#164

     First, wow! such a bitter speech. My reply was addressed to #162,

     second:

     Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

     You don’t understand how the “principal” (principle) will work, (and you obviously don’t want to) as the scripture says, you’ll have to support yourself, and take care of your own. I’m sorry you flattered yourself and took this as an advertisement and/or invitation, that is not what this is. I’m only interested in the Truth, and living the truth according to the revealed doctrines and continuing revelation. The scriptures are plain on these things.

     Despite your obvious sarcasm, If you are a Mormon, its a shame that you can mock God, the scriptures and the truth as you do, but it is your choice. Your comment is unwarranted and rather uncivil. In fact I’m not even sure why you responded, something hit a nerve with you, people often do get angry at the truth, it cuts some to the heart.

     I saw your blog, interesting that the bible is only No. 6 in your top list of books and you only love “parts of it” (only the parts you love apply, right?, nothing else, too bad God doesn’t work that way), but “Pride” and “Predjudice” are No. 1 on your list, perhaps another insight into you, (priorities?) or perhaps your (self admitted) name you signed with truly does reflect you. I stand firmly in what I believe, and this enables me to withstand your persecutions, however, If you’d like to discuss the truth, then we will have something to talk about, otherwise, I’ll have to politely decline any of your responses through silence.

     Sincerely,

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 2:15 pm

166. Garrett, see the name of the blog? That’s what it’s about. Not about non-feminist, fundamentalist, polygamist, alternative Mormon, co-housewives. Your take on “doctrine” is merely that–your take, and your fixation with pride and prejudice apply as much to you as anyone. Not to mention arrogance. I’m not interested. Get thee hence, please.

     Comment by Artemis — October 14, 2008 @ 4:05 pm

167. “Now taking it for granted that the scriptures say what they mean, and mean what they say, we have sufficient grounds to go on and prove from the Bible that the gospel has always been the same, and the officers to officiate, the same; and the signs and fruits resulting from the promises, the same: therefore, as Noah was a preacher of righteousness he must have been baptized and ordained to the priesthood by the laying on of the hands, etc. For no man taketh this honor unto himself except he be called of God as was Aaron, and Aaron was baptized in the cloud and in the sea, together with all Israel, as is related by the Apostle in Corinthians. This position or fact, is witnessed in this manner: the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, and practiced steadily up to the departing of Israel out of Egypt, was abandoned in the wilderness, forty years–and renewed by Joshua after he passed over Jordan, and encamped at Gilgal, where he made sharp knives and circumcised the whole male portion of the church.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 264)

     “What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads. I have a key by which I understand the scriptures.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 276)

     Any who Argue with will lose, period.

     “All the religious world is boasting of righteousness; it is the doctrine of the devil to retard the human mind, and hinder our progress, by filling us with self-righteousness….if you would have God have mercy on you, have mercy on one another.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 241)

     “Sisters of the society, shall there be strife among you? I will not have it. You must repent, and get the love of God. Away with self-righteousness! The best measure or principle to bring the poor to repentance is to administer to their wants.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 241)

     Consider for a moment, brethren [Sisters], the fulfillment of the words of the prophet; for we behold that darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the inhabitants thereof–that crimes of every description are increasing among men–vices of great enormity are practiced–the rising generation growing up in the fullness of pride and arrogance–the aged losing every sense of conviction, and seemingly banishing every thought of a day of retribution–intemperance, immorality, extravagance, pride, blindness of heart, idolatry, the loss of natural affection; the love of this world, and indifference toward the things of eternity increasing among those who profess a belief in the religion of heaven, and infidelity spreading to commit acts of the foulest kind, and deeds of the blackest dye, blaspheming, defrauding, blasting the reputation of neighbors, stealing, robbing, murdering; advocating error and opposing the truth, forsaking the covenant of heaven, and denying the faith of Jesus–and in the midst of all this, the day of the Lord fast approaching when none except those who have won the wedding garment will be permitted to eat and drink in the presence of the Bridegroom, the Prince of Peace! (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 47)

     Romans 1:16
     16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;

     Garrett

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 5:04 pm

168. I meant to put above “Any that argue with ‘God’ will lose, period.”

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

169. i argue with god all the time…

     it makes me a better person.

     Comment by mfranti — October 14, 2008 @ 5:12 pm

170. #167 “Now taking it for granted that the scriptures say what they mean, and mean what they say, ”

     There’s your problem Garrett. You take it for granted. You only speak for yourself. I for one do not take it for granted. Many do not.

     Comment by Ruby — October 14, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

171. Oh, wow, Garrett. I hope you’re real because you being a made up troll dude would just ruin my day!

     dude.

     just dude.

     Comment by Isis — October 14, 2008 @ 5:36 pm

172. I’d just like to say that I’ve always found modern men who relentlessly, smugly, and loudly proclaim the inescapable ( eternal! everlasting! timeless!) nature of plural marriage to be incredibly self-serving.

     Men who imagine a God who will reward them in heaven with nubile women have created for themselves a God who is a pimp and a heaven that is little more than a brothel.

     Comment by Starfoxy — October 14, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

173. #169 - That’s your perogative.

     #170-
     You need to realize that those words are Joseph Smiths words, he “spoke” them, the founder of your faith, the one who you probably have gotten up in during fast and testimony meeting and bore your testimony of him being a True Prophet, etc. So you’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with him, (so much for that testimony) and as far as the Written word of God and the words of True prophets, Until the more sure word of prophecy comes, you’d better believe I take it for Granted, I’m not better than Joseph Smith was, and He did it, and so will I.

     #171 Not sure what you mean by your comment, but I’m as real as anyone else.

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 5:56 pm

174. Looks like my former post may have been deleted, or there is a glitch, so I’ll repost, in regards to #174

     I’d like to clarify something in the scriptures, I’ll post multiple passages saying the same thing for those who may find it difficult to accept just one passage:

     Matt. 22: 30
     30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

     Mark 12: 25
     25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

     Luke 20: 35
     35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

     and if that isn’t enough here if one from the D&C:

     D&C 132:16-17:
     16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
     17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 6:12 pm

175. Think about that last verse for a minute in #174:

     They did not abide the law so they are “without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity….” Salvation without exaltation, that’s an interesting concept, don’ t you think? Saved to what then? They are saved to a LESSER glory, one less than the highest degree of Glory, where increase would be eternal, never ceasing. Isn’t reading the scriptures a blast!

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 6:15 pm

176. The point being (to #174-175) :

     Those of you who believe you will be able to live plural marriage in the next life, the CK, etc, how will you do this if there is no marrying or giving in marriage after the resurrection? And of course after the resurrection you go straight to the judgment bar to be judged, I just don’t think your going to squeeze in some polygamy there. It cannot be done, right from the mouth of Jesus, and Joseph again.

     I realize this may burst some people’s bubbles, but they aren’t my words!

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 6:21 pm

177. Garrett you are boring us. Please go away.

     Comment by Kali — October 14, 2008 @ 6:37 pm

178. Well I’m amazed you so called daughters of God are mocking and laughing at the scriptures and your own Prophets. You make me sick. I hope you get whats coming to you in Isaiah 3. I hope you are the ones that will be alone and desolate and set up on the ground weeping for your family because they have all been killed in the war. When you see Garrett and I coming in a bus to pick up your prideful A@# don’t be surprised O.K.? Because the only safe place on earth is going to the Kingdom of God and that is located in Utah, in the Rocky Mountains, and you will need to WALK here to see it, no cars, no planes, just your feet, I hope you don’t live far away and I hope you have a good pair of nike’s.

     Comment by Brian — October 14, 2008 @ 7:16 pm

179. Garrett, I find it sad that you are trying to bible bash us into complacency. It is because of men like you that polygamy will not be practiced until they can do so according to the Spirit of the Lord. He represents (to me) the most liberal man that has walked the earth. Maybe you should quit worrying about polygamy and start worrying about your own eternal salvation.

     Comment by KFJames — October 14, 2008 @ 7:24 pm

180. Well thats not Garrett thats trying to Bible Bash you into complacency. Thats Brian, Garrett is a different person, however I do know him. And you obviously didn’t read Isaiah 3 or you would have seen that GOD HIMSELF is going to FORCE you ladies into living the principle or you will be single FOREVER. I can understand why you don’t like it, you don’t like it any more than I like living the law of consecration, but if I expect to get to the Celestial Kingdom then I will live the law, and If my wife expects to get there then she will live polygamy, although you forget the woman gets to choose. NOT THE MAN. The reason you don’t agree with it, is you haven’t been “taught” that it is a correct principle from your youth, you have only listened to what others say about how gross it is, and you can’t overcome your jealousy long enough to see the purity of it. My wife agrees with the doctrine, she knows that it is right, she is just waiting for “her” to show up. I hope “she” is one of you, so I can throw this blog at you time and again, I am going to make a hundred copies of it right now. I hope to see you soon missy!!!!

     Comment by Brian — October 14, 2008 @ 9:09 pm

181. brian, are you aware that we are members of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints? Good.

     well, in our church, we don’t practice polygamy…it would get us excommunicated. so your rantings and threats hold no water (not that they would if you were our brand of lds)

     thanks for playing…

     run along now.

     Comment by mfranti — October 14, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

182. Yes I realize you are LDS….I served a mission myself…I know the church does not practice polygamy, and I also know that you would get excommunicated, I am not threatining you or ranting, just trying to show you your own bible and what it says regarding the practice. I like what you say about brands of LDS…as I totally agree and there are many brands. everybody just believes what makes them happy and fails to see the full picture. And thank you for yours and your friends comments, I really appreciate you fulfilling scripture and strengthening my testimony of them. And if I’m ever where your at I should like to set down to lunch with you and record all your hypocritical comments so me and my lovely wife can listen to them often and thank God we are holding to the iron rod. This has been the high light of my day…thank you and God bless….Oh and go read these scriptures and then get up on the first of the month and tell the congregation that you are so glad that you know the TRUTH and that Joseph Smith is a true prophet (had lots of wifes). you have some serious changing to do young lady… ALMA chapter 34…you only get one life to prove to God that you can live his eternal laws….MORMON 9:9….His laws are the same forever and yesterday and all that….So see to it that you conform yourself in all meekness….and don’t let Garrett get to you….he really is a nice guy, he just loves the truth, there is nothing wrong with that my dear sister in the gospel….see that you don’t procrastinate, I would hate to see the dumbfounded look on your face when you get sent to the terrestial kingdom and you thought you were going to the celestial…’weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth’

     Comment by Brian — October 14, 2008 @ 9:43 pm

183. oh hunny, I don’t doubt I’m going to the terrestrial kingdom. I’m actually looking forward to it. I will be in the best of company.

     Comment by mfranti — October 14, 2008 @ 10:00 pm

184. Yeah, like me!

     All my friends will be in the lower kingdoms. What a kick-ass time we’re going to have together.

     Comment by Chandelle — October 14, 2008 @ 10:05 pm

185. Speak for yourselves, sinners, Crazy Woman Creek is going to be drinking champagne in the Big C with all her husbands, ten babies and 100 nannies. Crap, did I mess up my theology again? Am I close? Do I get to have the Great Mormon Horn or Not Horned debated with Quimby, because it just wouldn’t be Celestial if I couldn’t.

     And Garrett, I apologize. That earlier comment was me trying to tease you gently- not mock or invoke bitterness. Good luck with all that.

     Comment by crazywomancreek — October 14, 2008 @ 10:14 pm

186. I can understand why you don’t like it, you don’t like it any more than I like living the law of consecration, but if I expect to get to the Celestial Kingdom then I will live the law,

     In other words, God asks us to sacrifice our happiness for our salvation. (God apparently also encourages his glorified celestial denizens to engage in nose-thumbing and in-your-face taunts.) At some point, though, shouldn’t we consider doing a cost-benefit analysis? Is salvation actually worth the eternal misery it supposedly entails?

     Yeah, that’s one party I lost interest in being invited to a long time ago.

     Comment by Kiskilili — October 14, 2008 @ 10:38 pm

187. @179 -KFJames
     You think because I quote some scriptures and Joseph Smith I’m Bible Bashing? Sure, Joseph even taught that God is more liberal than we are willing to believe, but He isn’t going to give you a free pass into the Celestial Kingdom, just because you want it, you’ve got to live his laws and prove you will serve him no matter what. Look, its really simple, either you believe the scriptures OR you DON’T, and if you don’t well then I guess you’ve got nothing to worry about, if you think you’ll be happy, but I’m not settling.

     As for some of the other comments, I am amazed that some of you are so willing to settle for the Terrestial kingdom or less, in fact I’ve never even heard of Mormons saying they wanted to go to the lower kingdoms, wow, but then again, I guess everyone can’t make it, someone has to fulfill the scripture that says the telestial kingdom will be as the stars in the heavens and the sands of the sea. (shoot for the stars, you’ll probably make it!)

     @185 apology accepted, like brian said, I just love the truth.

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 11:00 pm

188. @186, you need to realize that “SALVATION” is not the same as “EXALTATION.”

     Your talking about two different things here. This life will be but 1 second in all of eternity, so whether it seems worth it at the moment might be deceiving if you having a rough time right now, however, it will be beyond your wildest imagination, or definitely worth it, don’t you remember that Joseph said, something to the effect, that if we could have a glimpse of the glory and beauty of the Telestial kingdom we would want to kill ourselves to go there, so if it is so wonderful at that level, we can’t even begin to comprehend a Celestial World, don’t sell yourself short.

     Comment by Garrett — October 14, 2008 @ 11:06 pm

189. what can i say, i’m a pragmatist.

     Comment by mfranti — October 14, 2008 @ 11:08 pm

190. Excuse me–I don’t want an invitation to the Exaltation Party (ahem, Glorified Brothel, a la Starfoxy). The writing on the wall, as it were, seems to say: “It sounds like hell being an eternal concubine in a holy harem, but it’s actually a hell of lot more fun than you think! Don’t sell concubinage short!” Nah. I’ll take my chances in the Telestial sphere.

     Comment by Kiskilili — October 14, 2008 @ 11:17 pm

191. O.K. Thats the bell for round three, the people for polygamy have proven their point by holding onto the Iron Rod, and making their way past the people in the Tall building laughing and pointing the finger of scorn. We will enjoy our “brothel”, as you call it, and we will enjoy our reward, and yes it will cost alot. I never heard of anybody taking their money with them when they died, and who would want to anyhow, you would probly just have to pay taxes on it to some facist jerk. Maybe even our very lives as Jesus said, I won’t give references here anymore as none of you seem to give a crap about looking them up anyhow. This whole conversation has been nothing but fun. I think we have wore out the Polygamy subject at least twice. will somebody else post another comment bashing the gospel so that we can move on discover more reasons why God will have to purify this earth with fire?

     Comment by Brian — October 15, 2008 @ 9:21 am

192. Brian

     You are almost as boring as Garrett. I’ll tell you what — you go make your own blog about how wonderful polygamy is and I promise I won’t visit it.

     Love and kisses

     Kali

     Comment by Kali — October 15, 2008 @ 10:35 am

193. 192 (link)
     Who knew Pat Robertson could draw?!

     Comment by crazywomancreek — October 15, 2008 @ 11:20 am

194. Kali,

     As to me being boring, I think you have definitely chosen the wrong word, there has been more posts on this “dead” blog since I began posting than there has in the last two years, not to mention that you certainly haven’t given any life to this blog yourself….. and what’s with your satanic, canabalistic, and masochistic pictures?? I’d say its pretty freakish at best.

     Comment by Garrett — October 15, 2008 @ 11:37 am

195. yes it will cost alot.

     By which I assume you mean, it will cost a lot to women?

     I’m actually planning on going to Polyandry Heaven. I’m hoping the clutch of husbands I inherit as part of my eternal increase will serve sort of like a cabinet, taking care of the menial details involved in running my Queendom and then reporting back to me. Maybe I’ll have one for each day of the month.

     But if that doesn’t work out, I’ll try for Pie Heaven.

     (From the Scripture of Jack Handy, chapter 13, verse 6: “When you die, if you get a choice between going to regular heaven or pie heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick, but if it’s not, mmmmmmmm, boy.”)

     Comment by Kiskilili — October 15, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

196. Brian, I didn’t say that I rejected polygamy. I just reject being sealed to men like you, men that would cheerfully keep women in their place, all in His Name. After all, ya gotta keep the little woman barefoot, pregnant and mindless, don’t ‘cha know.

     Like the famous quote says, God is coming and boy is she pissed… at men like you.

     Although I am LDS, I don’t really consider myself a feminist by sociteal definition. You, however, need to start living the law as stated in D&C 121:41. Any man that does not practice those virtues will not practice polygamy.

     “My wife agrees with the doctrine, she knows that it is right, she is just waiting for “her” to show up. I hope “she” is one of you, so I can throw this blog at you time and again, I am going to make a hundred copies of it right now. I hope to see you soon missy!!!!”

     Do you really think that your wife would choose any of us just so that you can enjoy rubbing our noses in the dirt? How Christlike of you. Go read 121:41 and when you make those copies, save one for my hubby so that he can learn from your example.

     Comment by KFJames — October 15, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

197. dear jane, garret, brian. you will not pollute this blog with your apostate claims.

     you think you are clever? well, i’m smarter.

     have a nice day.

     Comment by mfranti — October 16, 2008 @ 1:43 pm

• Information
  • Introduction & Contact Info
  • Comment Policy
  • Newbie? Introduce Yourself
  • fMh bloggers
  • Submit a Guest Post
  • Need Advice? "Ask fMh"
  • T-shirts Cafepress or Zazzle
  • fMh Facebook group            
  • Help us pay our server fees:
  
• Search
  • 
    

• Recent Comments (IE click link twice)
  • Ray: God in the gaps.
  • JNR: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • djinn: God in the gaps.
  • LindseyM: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • Ray: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • IdahoG-ma: God in the gaps.
  • Rob Osborn: God in the gaps.
  • IdahoG-ma: God in the gaps.
  • Rob Osborn: God in the gaps.
  • Coffinberry: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • nat kelly: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • James McOmber: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • Ray: Our Blue-Eyed Savior
  • Mommie Dearest: Jane Austen Fight Club:
  • Alicia: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • AllieKay: Religious Multiple Personality Disorder
  • Brian: Jane Austen Fight Club:
• Do Good
  • Join fMh's Kiva microloan team
  • Join Team fMh at Kiva
• Sideblog
  • - Ms: Obama Signs Act To Empower Native Americans to Fight Rape
  • - What’s Hard to Look At
  • - BCC: A mother’s heart, A father’s heart
  • - The Fifty Deadliest Things
  • - I Enjoy Crushing Bastards
  • - Latter-Day Saints and Modern-Day Pioneers
  • - From Untouchable to Businesswoman
  • - Ms. Mag: Women’s Rights Quiz
  • - The Stigma of Being a Housewife
  • - One Bride for Two Brothers: A Custom Fades in India
  
  
  • more » | feed »
• Facebook Blog Network
  Blog Networks

  Blog:

  feminist Mormon housewives

  Topics:

  feminism, Mormon, LDS

  Join my network
• FMH Book Group
  "Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich -----Sep 1st-----
  
• Special Guest Discussion
  
  • Women & Authority:
  • Re-emerging Mormon Feminism
  • Discussion Lead By: Lula and Stephanieeeeeee
  • Now Reading:
  • Chapter Three
  • Discussion Date: Wednesday (usually)
  • Discussion Archives:
  • Introductory Material (2006)
  • Introductory Material (2010)
  • Ch. 1 (2006)
  • Ch. 1 (2010)
  • Ch. 2 (2006)
  • Ch. 2 (2010)
  • Ch. 3 (2006)
  • Ch. 3 (2010)
  • Ch. 4 (2006)
  • UP NEXT Ch. 4 (2010)
  • Ch. 5 (2006)
  • Ch. 6 (2006)
• Feminist Mormon Blogs

  A Liberal Mormon
  Beginnings New progressive site for YW leaders!
  By Common Consent
  Dave's Mormon Inquiry
  Doctors & Covenants
  Erin's LDS Women's History Blog
  Exponent II blog Am I not a woman and a sister?
  Hieing to Kolob
  Letters from a Broad
  Mama Nirvana
  Mind on Fire
  On Our Own
  PilgrimGirl
  Sunstone Blog
  The Faithful Dissident
  Zelophehad's Daughters
  




• Blogs by Mormon Women

  • Groups
  Mormon Mommy Wars
  Segullah Blog
  
  • Individuals
  Almost, But Not Entirely
  But I digress . . .
  Cchrissy's Tender Cargo Blog
  Dandelion Mama
  Enduring to the End
  Excelling at Mediocrity
  Gay Blanchard
  good times, noodle salad
  How I deal Faithful Gay Woman's Blog
  I hope you dance
  Keepapitchinin
  law blawg of theres petrey
  Lollygaggering
  Miss Jill in NYC
  Mom on a Wire
  Mrs. Everything
  Navel Gazing at it's Finest
  Neddy Palaver
  Posts of My House
  Reese Dixon
  Selo's Mini
  Tater Tot Casserole
  Tickle the Pear
  Watch out For Mama
  

• Official LDS sites
  LDS.org
  Mormon.org
  
• Random Links
  • (Because we're nice like that.)
  11 D
  Advice for New Feminists
  Black LDS.org
  Danithew
  Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought
  EMSA
  Ethesis
  FHA site (Geoff's)
  Gospel Cougar
  Holla Back NYC
  Invisible Green Photography
  Kulturblog
  Latter-day Main Street
  Liberal Oasis
  Life On Gold Plates
  Morman Mentality
  Mormon Chic
  Mormon Matters
  Mormon Stories
  Mormon Women's Forum
  Mormons for the Environment
  New Cool Thang
  Our Thoughts
  Segullah
  Sunstone Magazine
  Tender Cargo Baby Store
  The Good Democrat
  The Red Brick Store
  Times & Seasons
  
• 
> > Archives
• July 2010
• June 2010
• May 2010
• April 2010
• March 2010
• February 2010
• January 2010
• December 2009
• November 2009
• October 2009
• September 2009
• August 2009
• July 2009
• June 2009
• May 2009
• April 2009
• March 2009
• February 2009
• January 2009
• December 2008
• November 2008
• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005
• May 2005
• April 2005
• March 2005
• February 2005
• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004

• July 2010

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  « Jun
  			1	2	3	4
  5	6	7	8	9	10	11
  12	13	14	15	16	17	18
  19	20	21	22	23	24	25
  26	27	28	29	30	31

• Categories
  • Abortion/Contraception
  • Abuse
  • Best Posts
  • Body
  • Book Club
  • Career
  • Conversion
  • Day in the Life
  • Education
  • Environment
  • Faith
  • Father in Heaven
  • Feminism
  • Food
  • Jesus Christ
  • Just Life
  • Humor
  • Marriage
  • Mormon Culture
  • Mormon History
  • Mother in Heaven
  • Motherhood
  • Parenting
  • Patriarcy
  • Politics
  • Polygamy
  • Pop Culture
  • Prayer
  • Priesthood
  • Reconciling Questions
  • Sexuality
  • Social Issues
  • Spirituality
  • Temple
  • Womens History
  • Young Women
• Meta:
  • RSS 2.0
  • Comments RSS 2.0
  • WordPress
  • JS Quicktags
  • 
  • 

•