Temples and Polygamy

[Anonymous]

Roy, I really appreciate your thoughtful post.

Roy wrote:

The structure of heaven, the priesthood, the temple, sealings were at one point very tied up with polygamy. Now they are not. All of these items have evolved to the point where thay can stand on their own two feet independant of polygamy.

I can dig that.

I don’t buy the idea that Joseph was commanded to implement polygamy without receiving instructions on how to do it (I’m not saying that’s what you believe, btw – I see your post as some thoughts on various approaches to the issue). If an angel commanded Joseph to do it three times, he sure as heck would have provided a little direction. If God’s hand were in it, Joseph would have received some redirection after screwing up. As I see it, God did not provide a way for Joseph as He did for Nephi. Joseph went from one set of obstacles and blunders to another until he died.

Roy wrote:

Have you ever considered that your eternal marriage to your wife may be independant of your sealing? That perhaps you are bound to each other based upon your love, service, and devotion to each other rather than a specific ritual? Either way, I like putting the emphasis on how the marital union is lived more than how it begins.

I have considered that, and I do believe God will not separate married people with such love and commitment. The sealing ceremony is a bonus to me, I guess. I am very lucky and blessed to have had a good experience with it.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I think it’s more that they just don’t see or feel the inequality personally and, therefore, don’t understand how it looks and feels to younger, more “modern” women

While I acknowledge a generation gap issue, let’s bear in mind that I’m 46 years old, Ray. Hardly a spring chicken.

Shawn, go back and read E. Oaks’ talk about PH again with that view in mind and see what you think. I think he’s doing more than just innovating; I think he has very clearly in mind how polygamy fits in with the priesthood. And bear in mind that he’s on his second marriage, so mentally, he’s already a polygamist.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Hardly a spring chicken.

A summer swan?

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

Hardly a spring chicken.

A summer swan?

:thumbup:

Quote:

I wish I could know how the language and content of the initiatory/endowment are striking the huge numbers of young, unmarried women going through pre-mission these days.

I’m going to be one of them very shortly, so we’ll have to see. (:

I honestly don’t know what to expect (although I’m carefully researching it), but I have an OK idea how I’ll take it. It bothers me, as inequality always does, but mainly for the sake of others who take it more literal rather than as symbolic or as just part of tradition and another interesting experience to have in life.

I honestly didn’t know about the whole temple and celestial kingdom and polygamy issue until coming here. Polygamy has always unsettled me for various reasons, and it was a bit of a shock to find out how deeply ingrained in church beliefs it is. I’m glad for the resources and discussions here, though; and that’s all I’ve got to add to this particular discussion. (:

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

The key in seeing how much the temple is tied to polygamy is in noting the differences between promises made to men and promises made to women.

Could this not just be chalked up to sexism and not necessarily polygamy? It seems reasonable to attribute polygamy to sexism.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I have no doubt whatsoever the parts of the endowment that obviously are sexist will be changed, and probably in my lifetime (assuming I live to an average age) – but I am not confident it will be “soon”. The most senior leadership will experience a huge change in the next 10 years. It will be interesting to see what happens then.

This seems reasonable.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Shawn, go back and read E. Oaks’ talk about PH again with that view in mind and see what you think. I think he’s doing more than just innovating; I think he has very clearly in mind how polygamy fits in with the priesthood. And bear in mind that he’s on his second marriage, so mentally, he’s already a polygamist.

How does Elder Oaks fit polygamy with the priesthood?

[Anonymous]

richalger: Historically, priesthood was very tied to polygamy. Polygamy was how women entered the priesthood, and the temple is how women enter the priesthood. Polygamy was allowed to exist because of sexism, but it’s not some normal byproduct of sexism. It is actually more of a byproduct of classism (with an inherent devaluation of women) – I speak of polygamy as it has existed throughout the centuries and the world, not just in Mormonism, although it could not exist without classism and sexism even in the church. Because of the elitism of priesthood and temple and the latter-day movement, the polygamy was viewed as superior to non-LDS monogamy. It was a compliment to the women to be asked to participate in building those men’s dynasties. That’s the kind of compliment that only comes when sexism is a given, but also when classism and elitism exist. Men not participating in it were persona non grata.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl, I just read The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood. I don’t sense that “he has very clearly in mind how polygamy fits in with the priesthood.”

But it’s true that Dallin Oaks is sealed to two women at this time. It’s all unsettling. It sucks. It blows my mind that the alleged impetus for Joseph inquiring about polygamy and instigating it was to “understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—”

-There is not even a hint in the OT that God commanded Abraham to take Hagar, and that turned out to be a big mess.

-There is no mention whatsoever of Isaac being with anyone besides Rebekah.

-God didn’t command Jacob to do it.

-Moses was married to Zipporah only (she is the Ethiopian woman referred to in Numbers 12:1).

-David and Solomon’s having many wives and concubines was abominable. David repented of it (see 2 Samuel 20:3) and may have lived the latter part of his life with only Bathsheba (it depends on when Michal died).

Well, I said in another thread that I am dropping the polygamy issue. I should have stuck with that, but I decided to start this thread. I just need to forget about it for now.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate everyone’s contribution here. I’ll restate what I said before and then be done.

I have decided to drop this polygamy issue. I’m just quitting. It has been a canker on my soul. I’ll only say that a belief in polygamy, whether in the past or in the future, on earth or in heaven, is not required to have a testimony, be a faithful member of the church, follow Christ, have the Spirit, or go to heaven.

[Anonymous]

Amen, Shawn.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I’ll only say that a belief in polygamy, whether in the past or in the future, on earth or in heaven, is not required to have a testimony, be a faithful member of the church, follow Christ, have the Spirit, or go to heaven.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

West wrote:

Quote:

I’ll only say that a belief in polygamy, whether in the past or in the future, on earth or in heaven, is not required to have a testimony, be a faithful member of the church, follow Christ, have the Spirit, or go to heaven.

Agreed.

Yep. It is not asked about in TR interviews, it is not in the AoF, it is barely in the scriptures. One simply doesn’t have to believe it to be a full fledged active member. That in itself is liberating.

[Anonymous]

I’m glad you re-visited this topic one last time Shawn. You have an incredible way of relaying great information, bearing your emotion raw and offering an optimistic path within the struggle to make peace with this most confusing of all topics regarding our religious orgins. God bless you with comfort and a wonderful monogomous eternal marriage my friend.

[Anonymous]

Agreed, Shawn. Absolutely agreed. I’d be dead shocked if the church ever kicked anyone out (today anyway) for not accepting polygamy. I’ll let it go about the connection with the temple, but I don’t accept polygamy, never have, never will, don’t mind going to a lower kingdom if that’s a deal breaker. And I have been baffled forever about how “restoring” polygamy as part of God’s ordained ways was ever something that was perceived as necessary. It was cultural from what I can see. God didn’t initiate it in the OT. How JS got the notion is beyond me. Bushman hints around that sexual experimentation was always an offshoot of these types of enthusiastic religious movements.

[Author]

Posts