I have been very vocal on this blog that I am a fan of plural marriage. Not that I have the ability or desire to live it (my goal is to live simply and without complications - and that form of living seems like it would be fraught with complications of so many kinds) - but that I believe that our past supports it full implementation and that it is the highest form of consecration (sadly, especially if you are female). It would take the faith of the individuals to the extreme level in order to pull it off. Also, charity and so many other points. For a while, we had my MIL living in our home as she is aging. In the end, my wife - probably the most patient of people - could not get along with her (a highly dysfunctional woman) and it was part of the reason we literally bolted for Cardston last fall. I had to save the sanity of my wife when things finally came to a head. So, I have experienced the difficulty of trying to pull off the intricacies of female relationships (given that my MIL is one of of the more selfish people I have ever known - and not given to living a terrestrial or higher lifestyle). I know that, with the best of circumstances, two good people will have difficulty getting along (and that does not even factor in the complexities of intimacy with all of those loaded issues).
So, on the surface, I say NO THANKS!! But, I also know that it is a sifting institution where all people can be refined at the highest rate possible; the greatest bang for the spiritual buck, so to speak. It was something that gave Emma Smith fits - and many others among the spouses of the earlies. Most would/will fail at it - simply because it is difficult in the extreme. I also know that Isaiah 4:1 (click link) is coming in the future - when most men are wiped out due to war/famine/pestilence. There will be few left to fill the role of providing posterity. So, I expect it to rise once again as a practice. I am looking forward to it even though I may not be among those elect who are called to live it. I simply may not be spiritually of a level where I could do it. I may not be alive for that.
What it does signify for me (and possibly my posterity who do live in "those days"), is that it means that the dead wood has been purged and that the millennium is in full effect. It means that Consecration (in it's highest form) is being lived and that good has crushed evil for nearly 1,000 years. It means that Christ and His people have gotten the victory. No more corruption. No more lies. Just peaceful living in a near-perfect world. So, yes. I do support the practice - because I know what it means for the world.
Here are some stats that kind of shocked me. I had no idea the ratios were as bad as they are already - even before the purging. I know they are terrible down in Brazil in that 4 out of 5 of those sisters that I served with have had to marry outside the Church in order to have children. Most have experienced divorce, as well, probably due to the stress of the asymmetrical relationship. Marriage is difficult enough without having to deal with radical differences of value sets. So, yes. I do see plural marriage as a solution to the problem we have. Just when and where and how remains to be seen:
http://time.com/dateonomics/
I would love anecdotal input out there that backs this article one way - or the other.
Rubbish - it's economics. Many are still living in parents basements because the cost of life is so expensive they "fear" how they will be able to take care of a wife and children. Not to mention the cost of the actual wedding - some people stress about this starting at age 14.
ReplyDeleteWomen also don't want to commit - they like life as it is. They work, they make a living, they have extra cash to do what they want with. The aspect of marriage and still having to work, clean, raise children seems overwhelming in a already crazy world.
Selfishness - it's about being selfish!!
Just curious Iraq... Would you be such a fan of plural marriage if the roles were reversed? One woman and multiple men? Be honest.
ReplyDeletePlural marriage is WRONG unless commanded by God directly and then your wife needs to be in full agreement - period, because agency is in play and priesthood is at stake (D&C 121:36-37). Section 132 is all about the ever lasting covenant between one man and one woman, which was given to Joseph Smith as a result of his inquiry of the translation of the B of M Jacob Ch.2. Let's read those verses carefully:
ReplyDelete26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 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;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
The prophet Joseph Smith testified that “The Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on this Earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.” If that is the case then we had better heed it's teachings otherwise the condemnations pronounced by the Lord concerning the Book of Mormon as found in D&C 84:54-58 will be ours!
This book has provided many warnings from the Lord for our day. One such is found in 3 Nephi 16:10:
"And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them."
We are the Gentile (D&C 109:60 as reveal by the Lord) because who else can "sin against my gospel" and did "reject the fulness of my gospel" (D&C 124:28,41) and are "pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth" who are "filled with all manner of lyings and of deceits, and of mischief, and all manner of hypocrisy" there are way too many to list in this short post comment. Who have done "murders" and practice "priestcrafts" setting themselves up telling us to follow them (2 Nephi 4:34) and not directing their followers to the Lord and have participated in "whoredoms" unauthorized plural marriages, and are even now keep from the members of the church their financial doings, which is against the charter of this church..."secret abominations" which is even now bring judgements upon this people.
Wo be unto us Gentiles, who will not repent! (3 Nephi 16:8; 21:14)
Why wasn't my comment posted? It was emotionally honest, forthright, non-offensive and asked a direct question about how your wife feels about plural marriage being as you are in favor of it. As for the comment above about one wife and plural husbands, that wouldn't work. There would be confusion of the seed and patriarchal line without constant DNA testing right?
ReplyDeleteFellas - we've dedicated a segment of our blog to helping women see the eternal salvific purpose behind plural marriage in the eternal scheme of things and so far that we know we're the only non-Fundamentalist LDS women to do so. If you know of anyone who could benefit from this as a resource, please forward the information. Thanks.
ReplyDeletehttps://thewonderwomen.squarespace.com/polygamy/2015/1/1/a-principle-because-of-about-and-for-women
I look forward to the return of polygamy, not because of unrealistic fantasies but because I expect it to provide significant growth toward righteous living. I know some very worthy daughters of God who have never been able to marry and I also look forward to these friends being sealed.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it seems that much of the "shortage" is artificial. The article quickly points out that college educated women want come get educated husbands, so they are excluding anybody not sufficiently educated. It is worse for worldly women - they make a successful career, become accustomed to an expensive lifestyle, then they look for an extremely small pool of men who earn enough money to provide that lifestyle. And most of those men are either already married or want someone much younger. Those women suffer through a difficult school to learn they can't have their cake and eat it too.
I have a sneaky feeling you like ruffling feathers on certain issues :)
ReplyDeleteIn the millennium, since all men and women are righteous, there wouldn't really be much of a need for polygamy. Personally, I believe polygamy is a necessary sacrifice at times in this life, but that all will be restored to its proper order in higher kingdoms. Doesn't really matter, though. We just need to be able to bend our knee to the word of the Lord as it comes. As things are revealed, I'm sure we'll all have a little bit of crow to eat here and there. Maybe we'll find out sooner rather than later. ....
I've thought about this because I'm from pioneer stock which practiced plural marriage. I've been told that a man needs the permission of the first wife in order to marry a second wife. One would also need the first and second wife's permission for a third, etc. This would seem to be obvious because you would need everyone's buy in otherwise one person could make everyone miserable.
ReplyDeleteMy wife has told me that she will not practice plural marriage. She has also told me that she will not change her mind either and that if I want to practice it I will have to do that without her. Whooooooooh! I don't even have to think about the prospect.
Are you all for real?!? You're joking, right? At least I hope you're joking...
ReplyDeleteWe in the church have a hard enough time as it is making peace with our peculiar and imperfect history. Your public pining for the return of polygyny, and your categorization of it as a higher law of some kind, or a catalyst for spiritual growth, is not helping the cause.
Please reexamine your assumptions that somehow polygyny is going to be a demographic necessity in the future. Hopefully this essay from the late Eugene England, entitled "On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage", which was published in 1987 in "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" will help you work through your assumptions:
http://eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/1987_e_001.pdf
"We in the church have a hard enough time as it is making peace with our peculiar and imperfect history."
DeleteI'm honestly getting a bit annoyed about people whining about Church history problems. Seriously people, just get over it. No church or organization is completely proud of their history and if they are it's because something has successfully been covered up. Just get over it, look at the current blessings you have in your life, seek to follow Christ in your own life, stop judging others who lived in a time long before you did and whose problems and challenges you can't begin to understand and just move on. Quit whining people!
Amen! Amen!
DeleteIt's time to stop the madness. Stop recognizing that church history is peppered with real humans who did the limited best they could under the inspiration they had or felt they had. It's time to lionize the past, forget it happened, and make cute crafts out of egg cartons.
"It's time to lionize the past, forget it happened, and make cute crafts out of egg cartons."
DeleteYou've completely missed the point.
I think we can do better than shaming people for actually believing what Joseph Smith taught and apparently looked forward to, because it's likely he gazed into the heavens and saw how it worked (like Vilate Kimball said she did as well and that is how she could endure it in mortality - she said she saw how beautiful a thing it was as it operated in the heavenly realm). I trust Joseph Smith and Brigham Young over Eugene England's revisionism. I bet Bruce R. McConkie wouldn't trust Bro. England as far as he could throw him - I think he said as much.
ReplyDeleteAmanda@thewonderwoman.squarespace.com,
DeleteIt's okay to be wrong about polygamy. It's okay to not be able to make perfect sense of our loose theology, or to be able to fit everything about our tradition into a nice, comfy box. It's okay to recognize that we have our fair share of puzzlbments, contradictions, paradoxes, and unknown variables. It's okay to be human, and to extend that same courtesty (the being human) to our religious predecessors.
It's okay to be worng or to not have all the answers. You should try it sometime.