Polygamy in Heaven

[Anonymous]

Thanks Nibbler! That helps a lot.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

FaithfulSkeptic wrote:

I want to be clear that I do not want this thread to spiral down into something that does not support the mission of this site. But I do want to understand more about the current Church doctrine regarding polygamy.

On Own Now wrote:

FaithfulSkeptic wrote:

If we (as a church) really disavow the practice and doctrine of polygamy, why do we still…?

Just to be clear, the Church hasn’t disavowed either the practice or the doctrine of polygamy.

OON, can you explain more?

Well, you already got some great explanation from nibbler, but let me add:

– DISAVOW – “disavow” would imply that we Church has rejected either the past practice or the doctrine. Neither has happened. In fact quite the opposite.

– PRACTICE – The most common theological defense of the earthly practice of polygamy is rooted in the same BofM scripture that many use against the Church for contradicting its own teachings. The irony is awesome. Jacob 2 says:

Quote:

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

First, I note that in the LDS chapter heading, the Church points out the following (emphasis is mine):

Quote:

he Lord commands that no man among the Nephites may have more than one wife

But, more importantly, verse 30 provides what many interpret as the definitive statement on when polygamy is right on earth. God may not usually want men to have more than one wife, but he then provides what we might call “the Great Caveat”:

Quote:

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

In the LDS Church, this is still used today to justify the Church if/when polygamy is practiced (past or future).

The Church has not disavowed the 19th-century practice of polygamy. Instead, it has repeatedly said that it was practiced “because… God.” Current iteration of the essay at lds.org on plural marriage calls monogamous marriage “the Lord’s standing law” but right there in paragraph one, it asserts:

Quote:

By revelation, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage among Church members in the early 1840s.

So, while the “standing law of marriage” is non-polygamous, the Great Caveat requires that the Church not disavow it as a past or possibly future practice.

– DOCTRINE – Doctrinally, the Church continues to teach celestial polygamy and continues to seal men into it. Our own President of the Q12, RMN, is sealed to two women, both of whom are sealed to only one man. D&C 132 still appears in our scriptures. The Manifesto merely ended the “practice” of polygamy (and didn’t disavow it). And what it ended was, more specifically, the practice of polygamy in this life.

The Church has recently (Dec 2015 Ensign) made clear its current stance that polygamy is not required for exaltation, but did NOT say that it doesn’t exist in the afterlife. The not-required stance is a 20th century development that would have confounded the 19th century leadership. It’s the closest thing I can come up with to a disavowal. But these developments specifically continue to assert that polygamy exists in the afterlife.

[Anonymous]

I remember reading, I believe in Doctrines of Salvation, the strong counsel not to marry (as your first and possibly only marriage) the widows of other men that had been sealed in the temple. The book portrayed it as something of a levirate marriage in which the new husband is but a temporary steward over the first husbands wife and any children born into this later marriage go towards the first marriage. This is most likely how BY and others looked upon their responsibility to marry JS’s polygamous widows after his death. The thinking was that it was possible for the new husband to find himself without an eternal family in the afterlife.

Would everyone be reasonably pleased if widows were allowed to remarry in the temple without first getting a cancellation of her first temple marriage? Just as it is currently for widowers and just as it is currently for posthumous sealings where all the parties are deceased?

[Anonymous]

Ugh. Polygamy is revolting and ungodly. I have nothing good to say about it, literally nothing. It’s demeaning to women and it boosts male ego to insufferable levels. The church won’t disavow it for the following reasons:

– most leaders and “important” church families descended from polygamists. They won’t throw them under a bus.

– several top church leaders are currently practicing “celestial polygamy” by being sealed to more than one spouse (only one living spouse).

– the temple is based on the idea of celestial polygamy, unequal relationships, and women worshiping their husbands as if their husbands were God. This is what Brigham Young envisioned when he codified the current endowment. To him, this is a man’s eternal reward.

– women’s concerns have never been and will never be a priority to an all-male leadership.

Another interesting thing about polygamy, from a socio-economic rather than a Mormon perspective, is that polygamy is always a sign of wealth in patriarchal cultures. Owning more than one wife is a status symbol and indicates how much power that person has. When I say it’s ungodly it’s because Jesus didn’t preach patriarchy, and he didn’t preach power and wealth. He preached humility.

When Pres. Hinckley said what he said to Mike Wallace, he was being Bill Clintonesque. It depends on what the meaning of is is. It IS not doctrinal, meaning we don’t currently solemnize plural marriages for multiple living spouses like the FLDS do because we obey the law. Not because it’s demeaning to women which it is or because it’s morally reprehensible which it is. Just because we know that being on the wrong side of the law is not good for the growth of the church.

[Anonymous]

I have often suspected that GBH was a much more liberal man but he also knew the rule of Common Consent. Him saying “I think it’s not doctrine” was a public way for him to move some needles. Sadly things didn’t get over turned, ie – As God is or Polygamy, but I think he was using his position and press to try to persuade his colleagues.

I come to this conclusion from his comments when the 2 year TR change came along. I don’t have time to get the full quote, in essence he said there were many changes being discussed and hoped to role them out in the future. Sadly I don’t remember anything changing except TR, which means he never got a full commitment. I always wondered what they would be.

Now to the OP – No I don’t think polygamy as we see it will be practiced or required in heaven. How it will work I couldn’t guess. But Joseph only had Mary, Lehi only Sariah, Adam and Eve (I know I can go Jewish, but for the time being I won’t). Boaz only had Ruth. In my family – we never practiced polygamy and yet for all intents my ancestors were in the inner circles who would have practiced polygamy, on that alone I don’t believe polygamy is the standard of heaven.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Ugh. Polygamy is revolting and ungodly. I have nothing good to say about it

Amen.

To me, it just highlights that we don’t really know how things work in the afterlife, if we did, there would be better answers…but there is just lots of guessing and hoping. I have faith God is greater than what we understand right now. My situation is messy. It will get worked out.

Reminds me of that dialogue in Bridge of Spies between Tom Hanks’ character and the Russian spy:

Quote:

James Donovan: I have a mandate to serve you. Nobody else does. Quite frankly, everybody else has an interest in sending you to the electric chair.

Rudolf Abel: All right…

James Donovan: You don’t seem alarmed.

Rudolf Abel: Would it help?

I guess I’m not alarmed about who is sealed to whom in temples. I don’t think it would help to be. I reject polygamy as doctrinal, or to be practiced on earth or heaven. It’s not part of my story.

[Anonymous]

Plus it sounds like a really lame Eric Clapton song.

[Author]

Posts