LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 5:47 pm**

Indeed.

I have not seen anyone advocate the current practice of polygamy. We all know that the Lord has commanded against it in this day.

That does not mean He will deny the privilege at a later day.

Just as those who were born without knowledge of the gospel, those whom we go to the temple to save, we who are born in a time when plural marriage is disallowed will have the opportunity made up after death should we qualify. It is mercy of the Lord, that we might not be offered the law when we would reject it.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 5:54 pm**

THE LORD HONORED MOSES

The Lord blessed and honored Moses. He was called to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, and the Lord spoke to him "face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Exodus 33:11.) Moreover, the Lord gave to Moses the law by which Israel was to be governed, and not only accepted him as his servant, but accepted also his plural family and made provision in the law sanctioning plural marriage. This same Moses was highly praised and commended by our Savior when he was in his ministry on the earth.

In the Book of Revelation you will discover that the Lord revealed to John the Apostle, on the Isle of Patmos, that the holy city, New Jerusalem, was to be established when the Lord should come to reign in the millennium. No unclean thing was to enter this city, and it is written:

Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

For without are dogs and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. (Revelation 22:14-15.)

On the gates of this holy city, on its four sides are to be emblazoned the names of the twelve sons of Jacob, the heads of the tribes of Israel.

ANCIENT PROPHETS ACCEPTED FOR THEIR RIGHTEOUSNESS

In the revelation on celestial marriage, that is marriage for eternity, the Lord informed Joseph Smith that these men who had plural families in ancient times did not sin. Moreover, he taught Joseph Smith the doctrine of plural marriage and commanded him to practice it, and this practice was in the Church for many years.

In 1890, because of the enactment of laws forbidding this practice and because of the opposition on the part of all other people in the United States and throughout the so-called Christian world, the Lord instructed President Wilford Woodruff to call upon the members of the Church to discontinue the practice of plural marriage. From that time forth the Church has accepted this as a commandment, and plural marriage within the Church has ceased.

JUSTIFIED IN OBEYING THE LAWS OF THE LAND

When the government passed laws against plural marriage the Church, by revelation from the Lord, ceased the practice. In doing so they were justified, for in a revelation given to Joseph Smith when the Saints were prevented in building the temple in Independence, Missouri, the Lord said:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. (D. & C. 124:49.)

It is also written in another revelation:

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet. (D. & C. 58:21-22.)

According to the teachings and practice in the Church when a man and woman are married in the temple, and the wife dies, the man is at liberty to marry another wife for time and all eternity. It is also permissible for a man who has been divorced for good cause to marry again and have another wife sealed to him in the temple.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 3: 162.)

It is still God's law. We are no commanded to live it at this time because we are not commanded to break the law of the land.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 6:19 pm**

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/relig ... 4104/posts
http://en.fairmormon.org/Polygamy_book/Polyandry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Bartlett_Sessions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy
http://connellodonovan.com/pocket_companion.pdf

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 6:22 pm**

In the revelation on celestial marriage, that is marriage for eternity, the Lord informed Joseph Smith that these men who had plural families in ancient times did not sin. Moreover, he taught Joseph Smith the doctrine of plural marriage and commanded him to practice it, and this practice was in the Church for many years.

I figured it out. You guys must be from an apostate LDS group with a different D&C. The one I have says the opposite.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 6:24 pm**

I figured it out. You guys must be from an apostate LDS group with a different D&C. The one I have says the opposite.

No actually that is a quote from the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith.

I have more from other prophets if you would like to see them?

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 6:52 pm**

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:
President Gordon B. Hinckley gave this simple counsel to married couples: “Be fiercely loyal one to another” (Ensign, Feb. 1999, 4).

I would have said: If husbands would be fiercely loyal to the Lord, their wives would be fiercely loyal to them.

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:

In 1998, President Gordon B. Hinckley made the following statement about the Church’s position on plural marriage: “This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. … If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1998, 92; or Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

Of course this is good instruction for Americans, and Canadians etc., with our "1890 anti-mormon anti-polygamy law" put in place by those corrupt politicians to set us straight and outlaw polygamy, which the Lord instituted through his Prophet. What a wayward condition we were saved from thanks be to the double tongued politicians! So do not forget the circumstances with brought about the abolition of plural marriage in America. But wait! What of the countries of the world where polygamy is not illegal, where their politicians have not saved the wayward masses from the stain of polygamy? What will this worldwide church do with them? Shall we hold 3 divorces and then a baptismal service, or are they just left outside the church? How can that be better than this: President Hinckley said people can be gay and Mormon if they don't act on it. In other words, they have embraced the gay lifestyle in their hearts. If that is true, then how could you not embrace plural marriage in your heart as Brigham suggests, and go on to the highest exaltation? So if you are gay in your heart, you're OK, but if your culture (South African) says marry, marry, marry, you somehow are a perverted freak?

zionlist is bang on in general with his comments. Lukeair also hit it on the head with some quotes: ""If you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith, or you will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has obtained."

"A man may embrace the Law of Celestial Marriage in his heart and not take the second wife and be justified before the Lord.""

Reese wrote:Women have trouble with this particular item because they are the ones required to share their husband. ....

If you women are doing it right, you are already sharing your husband -- with the Lord. Your husband is to be, as I said and as zionlist has said, working closely with the Lord. When the husband does that, his wife will be drawn in to him like never before. It is a husbands greatness that makes him desirable, and he only becomes great as he gives his life to Christ and the magnifying of his priesthood.

Reese wrote:Surely there were more than 2% of the church membership that were 'worthy' of salvation.

Salvation does not equal exaltation. The telestial kingdom is salvation, as is terrestrial, and celestial. All are salvation.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 7:07 pm**

NoGreaterLove wrote:
I figured it out. You guys must be from an apostate LDS group with a different D&C. The one I have says the opposite.
No actually that is a quote from the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith.

I have more from other prophets if you would like to see them?

He doesn't care, I have given many such quotes.

Those who deny the law of plural marriage do not care about actual doctrine. They want to believe what makes them comfortable and what makes them acceptable before the world. The Lord will judge their allegiance righteously.

We will remember that at the time of the Lord's coming, five of the ten virgins will qualify. This is generally interpreted to mean half of the church at that day will be worthy to accept the bridegroom. That is at the day of His coming; what percentage is qualified now?

All of this said, we should also remember that there's a reason the Lord has withheld the law from us today; these generations, even these generations of Saints, just aren't qualified for it, and we ought not to stress too deeply these principles when the Presidency of the Church does not see fit to do so. The Lord puts people in their own day for a purpose.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 7:14 pm**

NoGreaterLove wrote:
A more worthy exalted man can steal your wives.
This is a bold statement. Do you have doctrinal proof of it?

You're joking, right? You haven't read diddely squat about Joseph Smith's polygamy apparently.

Carry on.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 7:22 pm**

I would think that anyone who believes that the Prophet of the Restoration engaged in "wife stealing" is on very shaky ground and nigh unto apostasy. We must remember not to speak evil of the Lord's anointed; Joseph is foremost of the Lord's anointed among these final generations.

Joseph cohabitated primarily and singly with Emma his whole married life, and he did not engage to "steal" the wives of other men into eternity. Joseph's sealings to the wives of other men were not such that he became their new primary husband; they were sealings like, "Let us be sealed to the Prophet so that we can hang out with him when we are dead."

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 7:30 pm**

I went to education week this summer in Idaho. One of the instructors said something interesting to me. He said that pornography is actually a great worthiness test. He said Heavenly Father would never allow a man into the Celestial Kingdom who would lust after another God's wife.

So I don't think there will be wife stealing in the next phase of our existence. I do believe that men who are unworthy to go to the celestial kingdom and their wife is worthy, their wife will be given to another man. That isn't stealing. But I think you men ought to be a little more worried about your worthiness for the one wife you have instead of focusing so much attention on getting more of them.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 7:33 pm**

I don't think anyone is worried about getting more of them. We just expect to receive more at the Lord's command, and prepare ourselves in all things, that the Lord might find us acceptable before Him.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 7:40 pm**

Why do you want more? And are you clean and worthy for the one you have now?(second question I really don't want an answer to, because that is not my business. But if you are involved in porn you are not worthy to keep the one you have now.)

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 7:40 pm**

I want more because God has more, and I want to be like God.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 9:26 pm**

Okay, stealing may not be the best term... is "taking" alright? As in, If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. (Brigham Young) I don't suppose that rings a bell, though.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 9:37 pm**

Thank you, zionlist, for taking the time for your lengthy and thought-provoking reply. I must admit that when thinking of the advantages to polygamy, I was merely focusing on the physical aspects of it, but you are completely right. Leadership wise, polygamy makes sense. Women really love and need the companionship of other women. I had always thought of it as separate families having to share one husband, but if it is all one family, and the wives belong to each other as well as their husband (but in different roles), then that would be ideal. I certainly could use another wife around here, especially during pregnancy and after having a baby. It all boils down to understanding gender roles.

This also helps me understand why homosexuality is always present when societies have reached their worst. Homosexuality is the ultimate perversion of marriage, more so than cohabitation. Cohabitation is living as a family, without the spiritual sanction of family ties. Homosexuality perverts and distorts Heavenly Father's plan to the greatest degree by attempting to erase those qualities in men and women that make marriage a blessed and essential union and one that allows the eternal progression that only having children can provide. I never realized how important gender roles were.

Thank you for your comments also, patriotsaint. That also clarifies the issue for me. It is normal for children to feel jealous of each other, but from the parent's perspective, it's disturbing and unnecessary. Of course, now that you put it that way, I can see how women would not need to be jealous of each other either. Though their husband might have less time and energy for each individual, the family as a whole would have been added to and they would have the benefit of the company of their sister wives.

As for some of the concerns about polygamy that have been posted: I don't think it's appropriate to compare polygamy to murder. Doing so indicates that it is an evil thing the Lord commands once in a while when necessary, but this is not true. The Lord has never given an absolute command against polygamy including in Jacob 2. There have only been times when he has not sanctioned it, which I imagine are due to the wickedness. Just as living together outside a marriage relationship is wrong, a polygamous relationship outside the dictates of the Lord's commands would be wrong. But on the whole, polygamy is a higher and better law than simple monogamous marriage.

As for those saying we ought not to prepare for this principle, I could make a good argument for needing to, but there is another reason for it and one that has been a driving force behind my finding answers on this topic. The early prophets in the latter-days practiced this principle. I cannot reconcile the feelings of contempt and disgust I've had in the past for this practice with the honor due these men for their leadership. If I can understand polygamy, I can understand and honor the early saints so much better.

By the way, Lukeair, that was a great video. I especially liked the point he made about polygamy not being just an outlet for worldly lusts, which I would like to add here. Essentially, what he said was that if polygamy was about giving in to lust, there are much easier ways to do so. Having to maintain a whole extra family is about the hardest way to do so.

Posted: **January 4th, 2010, 10:10 pm**

I stopped at the end of page one thinking I was done when I posted before. I'd like to add a couple comments.

First of all, women generally have to struggle with jealousy if they are going to accept this law. They have to struggle with the idea of their husband having a relationship with another women which is like the relationship they share with their husband. Not an easy thing to accept. But in considering whether you women ought to try to accept the idea of plural marriage keep in mind that if your husband were to someday be asked to live a plural marriage, and you refused, you would be denying your husband and at least one other women blessings that the Lord wanted them to receive.

Reese, I know this is a difficult issue, and certainly you should take your time in understanding it, but don't shut out any chance of understanding by saying it's not wrong to be happy with what you have now. There's nothing wrong with what you have now, but there would be something wrong with denying something better for your family if you had the chance in the future.

Another point I would make is to reiterate what I said about Truman Madison's video. Living polygamy is harder than simply committing adultery. I think we should be slow to accuse men of impurity in their attempts to understand this law.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 1:44 am**

Polygamy also favors the women over the men much more than monogamy in one other way not mentioned yet. How? If a man is married in a monogamous society, he is permanently out of the running. However, in a polygamous society, he is still potentially "fair game", leaving the unmarried women with all the original choices as possibilities. In this way, there would be no more one horse towns. Those so called "men" that we now look down on will at that time be left with nothing because all the women will gravitate to the real men -- men who love children more than money -- the real family men, the kind and tender men at home, and fair and dedicated and hard working in the world, the kind of man who is a hero to his family -- leaving the others to either improve in a hurry or spend the rest of eternity by themselves.

So polygamy give the women more choices, and it ups the ante for the men who either have to put up or sit out.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 2:02 am**

zionlist.com wrote:Please pay more attention to the covenant. Wives give themselves to their husbands. Husbands give themselves to the Lord.

Your desire of complete mutual "giving" is nullified by the Priesthood and the covenant wherewith you are sealed. Wives give their all to their husbands inasmuch as their husbands give their all to the Lord. The covenant is not reciprocal among the married parties.

I think that the more violent your reaction against this eternal and celestial standard, the more you should seek the Lord's assistance in coming to accept it. It will be required at the hands of those qualified for it in the Lord's due time, and as much as it might not seem this way to you now, you will one day want to be qualified to receive it. Covet not your husband, for he is the Lord's.President Kimball, as well as numerous scriptures has made it perfectly clear that I should covet my husband and his commitment to our relationship. That he is to cleave unto me. As President Kimball said the spouse should be preeminent in the life of the other spouse, that nothing and no one should take presidence over the spouse. I know the Lord takes presidence but that would be for both spouses and would not be a threat to their commitment to each other.

I shall reiterate that the fullness of celestial marriage is plural celestial marriage. An exaltation which contains a plural marriage is greater than an exaltation that contains a single marriage. The Lord God is exalted with a plurality of wives; if we truly want to be like Him, we must come to terms with this eternal truth, and with the fullness of the celestial law.

Zionlist, what are you talking about? Wives are to hearken to their husbadns as the husband hearkens to the Lord. Both are required to give their all to the Lord. Both must have a personal relationship with and testimony of the Lord. Then together, as one they workout their salvation with the Lord.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 2:12 am**

bobhenstra wrote:
reese wrote:
Agreed. My problem with this is it goes way beyond me holding on to social customs. My whole, entire being revolts against this. It literally has a physical(not pleasant ) effect on me. I give my all to my husband. I want his all in return. I could not be happy with anything less. We are very much one in all things. I can't fit any other women into that relationship, if you know what I mean.

True but we must also share you with Him too. But that is ok, the best marriages have three individuals it them, the husband, the wife, and the Lord.
Reese,

I think your doing just fine. Let other people covet "your" marriage, and you continue to love your husband with all your heart.

You don't have to prepare yourself for anything but him and your children. Let your mind be at peace about polygamy.

Bob

Thanks Bob, I appreciate that. This is just about the most Christlike response to this subject I have heard here.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 2:21 am**

I'm talking about just what I said.

The Lord's house is a house of order and He follows His established chain of command. He has made the man head over the household. You are correct that both men and women ought to have deep personal relationships with the Lord, but the wife is under the Priesthood stewardship of her husband and the man holds the responsibility to the Lord to direct and preside in righteousness.

President Kimball is of course correct, but his statement refers to worldly concerns. The chief concern of every person ought to be their relationship with God and its continual improvement. This concern should and must supersede a married couple's commitment to each other.

You've repeatedly stated a deep aversion to the fulness of the law of celestial marriage. You must reconcile that. The Lord has decreed it because it is for the good of man, as He has decreed all other eternal law. You must recognize that plural marriage is the fulness of the new and everlasting covenant, and that the Lord will ask all who can bear it to practice it in His own due time. If you want to be part of the group that's offered that blessing, you have to prepared, just as one must prepare to enter the temple, to enter the New Jerusalem, to enter the Celestial Kingdom, to ordain and administer in the Priesthood, and so on. Part of that preparation is to be ready to give on the Lord's command.

You also seem to infer that preparing to live celestial law to the fullest extent possible somehow creates a rift between you and your husband. I am wholly and completely committed to my one and only wife, but I anticipate the day that the Lord will ask us to share our relationship, our Priesthood, and our love with at least one other wife, and I will be ready to give on His command.

This isn't a special focus on polygamy, either. I try to prepare my heart in this way for all celestial law and celestial glory to the fullest extent possible, that myself and my family might receive such a glory and such a peace as soon as the Lord is ready to bestow it upon us.

You can take this to an extreme; for instance, in my opinion, it is extreme to make a list of "potential other wives", or to lust after other women, or to seek such relationships now when the Lord has specifically commanded us not to do so. This is not the same thing as preparing your heart to live an eternal, celestial law of peace which The Lord God of Israel Himself lives, and which was decreed to enable us to receive a greater fullness of joy.

To qualify to see the Lord, we must rid ourselves of "jealousies and fears" (D&C 67). Do you think that jealousy after your husband insofar as it causes you to retch at the mention of celestial law is appropriate? There is a proper extent for that jealousy in this world and this time, but it is certainly not to that extent.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 2:31 am**

Nan wrote:I went to education week this summer in Idaho. One of the instructors said something interesting to me. He said that pornography is actually a great worthiness test. He said Heavenly Father would never allow a man into the Celestial Kingdom who would lust after another God's wife.

So I don't think there will be wife stealing in the next phase of our existence. I do believe that men who are unworthy to go to the celestial kingdom and their wife is worthy, their wife will be given to another man. That isn't stealing. But I think you men ought to be a little more worried about your worthiness for the one wife you have instead of focusing so much attention on getting more of them.

I am kinda concerned with that logic. For one thing then, it makes it seem okay for women to view porn (there are more young women today that are regular visitors to porn sites on the net than old men) and it is the fastest growing demographic for use of the stuff. Now the 10 Commandments does not forbid women from coveting another man, even if married, since she could technically marry hom as well. As for women viewing other women, I am not sure.
Also, it creates a weird way of teaching morality. Shall I teach my sons that if they avoid porn in this life that in the end they will be awarded those hot women on the sites in the next life? Maybe they will get Brother Jone's cute wife if he is looking at porn. Again, this line of reasoning makes women some sort of prize for worthy men -- talk about ovjectification. At least worthy Muslims get 72 virgins created for them plus their wives in this life.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 2:34 am**

ithink wrote:
SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:
President Gordon B. Hinckley gave this simple counsel to married couples: “Be fiercely loyal one to another” (Ensign, Feb. 1999, 4).
I would have said: If husbands would be fiercely loyal to the Lord, their wives would be fiercely loyal to them.
Yes, but President Hinckely said "Be fiercely loyal one to another."

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:

Reese wrote:Women have trouble with this particular item because they are the ones required to share their husband. ....
If you women are doing it right, you are already sharing your husband -- with the Lord. Your husband is to be, as I said and as zionlist has said, working closely with the Lord. When the husband does that, his wife will be drawn in to him like never before. It is a husbands greatness that makes him desirable, and he only becomes great as he gives his life to Christ and the magnifying of his priesthood.
From a womans perspective, the husband becomes more desirable when he is completely commited to his wife, and she knows it. When he makes it clear that he loves and adores her and none else, when his main concern is her happiness, when he is willing to practice polygamy if commanded to but he desprately hopes he not commanded to because he loves his wife with all his heart, and he cannot imagine sharing her or hurting her. If a woman knows this of her husband, I promise she will adore him. She will trust him and open herself up to him completely. Yes it is a desireable thing to have a man of God. But to have a woman desire you above all else, she must know that she is your most desired and loved of all things, only then will she want to give her self completely to you.

Reese wrote:Surely there were more than 2% of the church membership that were 'worthy' of salvation.
Salvation does not equal exaltation. The telestial kingdom is salvation, as is terrestrial, and celestial. All are salvation.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 2:40 am**

Why on earth are you two up so late?

My excuse is a herniated disk in my lower back....can't sleep!

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 3:01 am**

reese wrote: From a womans perspective, the husband becomes more desirable when he is completely commited to his wife, and she knows it. When he makes it clear that he loves and adores her and none else, when his main concern is her happiness, when he is willing to practice polygamy if commanded to but he desprately hopes he not commanded to because he loves his wife with all his heart, and he cannot imagine sharing her or hurting her. If a woman knows this of her husband, I promise she will adore him. She will trust him and open herself up to him completely. Yes it is a desireable thing to have a man of God. But to have a woman desire you above all else, she must know that she is your most desired and loved of all things, only then will she want to give her self completely to you.

I find this sad. You are attracted to your husband when he values your jealousy over the glory of God. Why should you be attracted to that?

I'm up because I have a weird sleeping schedule.

Posted: **January 5th, 2010, 3:16 am**

zionlist.com wrote:
reese wrote: From a womans perspective, the husband becomes more desirable when he is completely commited to his wife, and she knows it. When he makes it clear that he loves and adores her and none else, when his main concern is her happiness, when he is willing to practice polygamy if commanded to but he desprately hopes he not commanded to because he loves his wife with all his heart, and he cannot imagine sharing her or hurting her. If a woman knows this of her husband, I promise she will adore him. She will trust him and open herself up to him completely. Yes it is a desireable thing to have a man of God. But to have a woman desire you above all else, she must know that she is your most desired and loved of all things, only then will she want to give her self completely to you.
I find this sad. You are attracted to your husband when he values your jealousy over the glory of God. Why should you be attracted to that?

I'm up because I have a weird sleeping schedule.

Sorry but I fail to see how this is 'my jealousy'. And how the glory of God would be threatened or contradicted by this.

LDS Freedom Forum

Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy

Re: Polygamy