Polygamy best tactic to destroy a family

[Durzan]

Do you really think fewer men than women will be in the celestial kingdom? There are 105 men born for every 100 women. Males are more likely to have special needs and to die as children. Males are also more likely to be born severely premature, and are less likely to survive premature birth. Men are also more likely to die in wars, or from accidents as young men.

Do you really think so little of your gender?

There have been others who have sincerely believed that... which is incidentally why they believed men are authorized to hold the priesthood should they prove to be worthy. However, I personally don't think so little of my gender, as I don't believe one gender or the other is inherently more righteous than the other. Men have some major problems with righteousness, but so do women. My guess is that the areas that they struggle in may be somewhat different in nature, although some significant areas of overlap are almost a certainty.

As for whether I think there will be more men than women in the Celestial Kingdom, I cannot say for certain. My understanding of that particular question is based mainly on logic and reasoning given the information that I know. What little evidence and testimony there is does seem to indicate that a gender imbalance is likely, if not certain to be the case. Not a complete certainty, but a distinct and highly likely possibility. The gender imbalance could easily be male or female, and it could be a slight imbalance or a major imbalance.

So we could have a situation where the ratio of men to women in the CK is roughly the same as it is on Earth at birth (1.07 men to 1 women), a situation where it proves to be the opposite (1 man to 1.07 women), or a situation where it proves to be a significant imbalance (Where there is at least 150% more of one gender than the other). While having a surplus of men is plausible and even likely (assuming that the gender ratios remain consistent with gender birth ratios on earth throughout all the Kingdoms of Glory that is), the language of D&C 132 and other scriptures indicates that it is likely the women who will have the surplus population in the CK.

However, you are asking one of the wrong questions when you ask if the entire CK would have a gender imbalance. The real question should be this: What will be the overall Gender Ratio of all those who would potentially qualify for the Highest Degree of the Celestial Kingdom? That is the core underlying question that you should be asking with regards to Polygamy. All the other questions are mere shadows or appendages to that question.

The thing is that many people here have approached polygamy from not only the wrong starting points, but also are/were asking the wrong questions, making the wrong assumptions (be it good or bad).

If women are inherently more righteous as a group, then why don't we hearken unto their leadership and make men act more like women?

Why? Because in my opinion, women are not necessarily inherently more righteous than men as a group. If they are, it is only by a relatively slight margin, that is balanced out by worthy Priesthood holders.

Men cannot act like women (at least not completely), because we are biologically programmed (and also socially programmed) to respond to certain situations in a manner that proves different than women would. Attempts to get us to act like women would remove a very vital component of all units of society. In fact, this is happening to us today!

I personally don't believe these things, but I don't understand why people think there will be more men than women in the celestial kingdom. That is just unknowable, and judging by the wonderful men in my family and community, unthinkable.

Unknowable? Yep. Unthinkable? Not in the slightest, as I can imagine both a CK where there are more Men than Women (and can guess why too), or a case where there are more women than men, and back it up with a coherent argument.

[Finrock]

If you have adults who have not been manipulated, who have not been coerced, who have not been brainwashed, who have not been controlled, or threatened in any way, and they decide to live in a polygamous relationship with eyes wide open (full understanding, full knowledge, full recognition) and by their own free will and choice, then, outside of an appeal to an authority, where is the evil in this?

-Finrock

It can be said about any activity.

This isn't true. So you can't dismiss my question by this assertion.

If a child is fully participating and engaged and not coerced or persuaded or pressured into a relationship with an adult....how can it be evil?
This argument has been used by the adversary to trick many people.

What a nonsensical answer. A child can't consent to such a thing. Adults and children are different.

In any case, my question is concerning adults. All of the facts and the conditions that I outline in my question are realistic and possible. Therefore, given the facts and the conditions that I outline, where is the evil in polygamy?

Polygamy done either way, even polyammory is a choice. If people make their own choices and it doesn't hurt anyone then they are free to make that choice. Many biblical stories have examples of how the people were able to make their own choices from their own desires and God let them do it.

It comes down to the revealed commands of the Lord and our conscience as to if something is right or wrong for us to do.

No it doesn't. Morality isn't relative. In any case, my question is still valid and your points have not countered it or answered my question in any way.

-Finrock

Are you really asking a question? Or are you trying to prove your point?

Are you really asking a question? Yeah, I am really asking a question and I'm also trying to see if anyone has a counter argument to what I'm saying.

Polygamy doesn't have to be evil. No.

OK. I agree.

But...your scenario is unlikely. That's a whole lot of variables that need to be satisfied perfectly. Is that even possible?

How did you determine that its unlikely? First, its not that many variables. Many of the things I stated overlap. I was just being thorough to make sure I covered all the bases. You think its unlikely that there are adults who are intelligent, responsible, knowledgeable, and free from coercion and manipulation?

My point with the child was that many wicked people use these pleas to say what they are doing is okay and not immoral. They do classify morality as being relative.

OK, but you were responding to what I said so your post ought to be relevant and respond to the point I was making.

My question acknowledges all of the objections that I have seen given as to why polygamy is wrong. I agree that the way that it was practiced by the early Mormon Church is wrong. But, the objections that have been given are not universal or intrinsic to polygamy. If they are, then this has not yet been demonstrated or proven.

-Finrock

[MMbelieve]

It can be said about any activity.

This isn't true. So you can't dismiss my question by this assertion.

If a child is fully participating and engaged and not coerced or persuaded or pressured into a relationship with an adult....how can it be evil?
This argument has been used by the adversary to trick many people.

What a nonsensical answer. A child can't consent to such a thing. Adults and children are different.

In any case, my question is concerning adults. All of the facts and the conditions that I outline in my question are realistic and possible. Therefore, given the facts and the conditions that I outline, where is the evil in polygamy?

Polygamy done either way, even polyammory is a choice. If people make their own choices and it doesn't hurt anyone then they are free to make that choice. Many biblical stories have examples of how the people were able to make their own choices from their own desires and God let them do it.

It comes down to the revealed commands of the Lord and our conscience as to if something is right or wrong for us to do.

No it doesn't. Morality isn't relative. In any case, my question is still valid and your points have not countered it or answered my question in any way.

-Finrock

Are you really asking a question? Or are you trying to prove your point?

Are you really asking a question? Yeah, I am really asking a question and I'm also trying to see if anyone has a counter argument to what I'm saying.

Polygamy doesn't have to be evil. No.

OK. I agree.

But...your scenario is unlikely. That's a whole lot of variables that need to be satisfied perfectly. Is that even possible?

How did you determine that its unlikely? First, its not that many variables. Many of the things I stated overlap. I was just being thorough to make sure I covered all the bases. You think its unlikely that there are adults who are intelligent, responsible, knowledgeable, and free from coercion and manipulation?

My point with the child was that many wicked people use these pleas to say what they are doing is okay and not immoral. They do classify morality as being relative.

OK, but you were responding to what I said so your post ought to be relevant and respond to the point I was making.

My question acknowledges all of the objections that I have seen given as to why polygamy is wrong. I agree that the way that it was practiced by the early Mormon Church is wrong. But, the objections that have been given are not universal or intrinsic to polygamy. If they are, then this has not yet been demonstrated or proven.

-Finrock

Honestly, I think what your asking for is not so easy to satisfy.
No matter the reason given to counter, there will always be an exception somewhere that defies the claim. Always an exception to the rule kind of thing. With how different human beings are and all the different cultures and time periods. It's likely impossible to say that polygamy is morally wrong across the board.

It must come down to God's law. And many cultures have different God's they adhere to. The almighty God has said that monogamy is his wish and his rule.

That's all I have for you.
Maybe someone else can articulate something fantastic to add.

[Finrock]

This isn't true. So you can't dismiss my question by this assertion.



What a nonsensical answer. A child can't consent to such a thing. Adults and children are different.

In any case, my question is concerning adults. All of the facts and the conditions that I outline in my question are realistic and possible. Therefore, given the facts and the conditions that I outline, where is the evil in polygamy?



No it doesn't. Morality isn't relative. In any case, my question is still valid and your points have not countered it or answered my question in any way.

-Finrock

Are you really asking a question? Or are you trying to prove your point?

Are you really asking a question? Yeah, I am really asking a question and I'm also trying to see if anyone has a counter argument to what I'm saying.

Polygamy doesn't have to be evil. No.

OK. I agree.

But...your scenario is unlikely. That's a whole lot of variables that need to be satisfied perfectly. Is that even possible?

How did you determine that its unlikely? First, its not that many variables. Many of the things I stated overlap. I was just being thorough to make sure I covered all the bases. You think its unlikely that there are adults who are intelligent, responsible, knowledgeable, and free from coercion and manipulation?

My point with the child was that many wicked people use these pleas to say what they are doing is okay and not immoral. They do classify morality as being relative.

OK, but you were responding to what I said so your post ought to be relevant and respond to the point I was making.

My question acknowledges all of the objections that I have seen given as to why polygamy is wrong. I agree that the way that it was practiced by the early Mormon Church is wrong. But, the objections that have been given are not universal or intrinsic to polygamy. If they are, then this has not yet been demonstrated or proven.

-Finrock

Honestly, I think what your asking for is not so easy to satisfy.
No matter the reason given to counter, there will always be an exception somewhere that defies the claim. Always an exception to the rule kind of thing. With how different human beings are and all the different cultures and time periods. It's likely impossible to say that polygamy is morally wrong across the board.

It must come down to God's law. And many cultures have different God's they adhere to. The almighty God has said that monogamy is his wish and his rule.

That's all I have for you.
Maybe someone else can articulate something fantastic to add.

Hey, thanks for taking the time to respond and to share your thoughts!

-Finrock

[Finrock]

This isn't true. So you can't dismiss my question by this assertion.



What a nonsensical answer. A child can't consent to such a thing. Adults and children are different.

In any case, my question is concerning adults. All of the facts and the conditions that I outline in my question are realistic and possible. Therefore, given the facts and the conditions that I outline, where is the evil in polygamy?



No it doesn't. Morality isn't relative. In any case, my question is still valid and your points have not countered it or answered my question in any way.

-Finrock

Are you really asking a question? Or are you trying to prove your point?

Are you really asking a question? Yeah, I am really asking a question and I'm also trying to see if anyone has a counter argument to what I'm saying.

Polygamy doesn't have to be evil. No.

OK. I agree.

But...your scenario is unlikely. That's a whole lot of variables that need to be satisfied perfectly. Is that even possible?

How did you determine that its unlikely? First, its not that many variables. Many of the things I stated overlap. I was just being thorough to make sure I covered all the bases. You think its unlikely that there are adults who are intelligent, responsible, knowledgeable, and free from coercion and manipulation?

My point with the child was that many wicked people use these pleas to say what they are doing is okay and not immoral. They do classify morality as being relative.

OK, but you were responding to what I said so your post ought to be relevant and respond to the point I was making.

My question acknowledges all of the objections that I have seen given as to why polygamy is wrong. I agree that the way that it was practiced by the early Mormon Church is wrong. But, the objections that have been given are not universal or intrinsic to polygamy. If they are, then this has not yet been demonstrated or proven.

-Finrock

Honestly, I think what your asking for is not so easy to satisfy.
No matter the reason given to counter, there will always be an exception somewhere that defies the claim. Always an exception to the rule kind of thing. With how different human beings are and all the different cultures and time periods. It's likely impossible to say that polygamy is morally wrong across the board.

It must come down to God's law. And many cultures have different God's they adhere to. The almighty God has said that monogamy is his wish and his rule.

That's all I have for you.
Maybe someone else can articulate something fantastic to add.

First, I'm just using MMbelieve's post as a platform to continue my ideas. This isn't a direct response to the quoted post.

I believe there is a way to practice polygamy that avoids pretty much all of the objections that have been given as to why polygamy is evil/wrong. I reject the way polygamy was practiced in the early Church. If there is to be a polygamous relationship that is good, then there can be no element of compulsion or coercion. Meaning, I don't believe God ever commanded a person to enter a polygamous relationship under threat of losing their salvation. I don't agree that polygamy is the "celestial law". I don't believe polygamy is required for exaltation. Teaching a person that they are displeasing God if they don't accept polygamy, is wrong, and any other ideas like this. An adult man marrying a young teenage girl, whether polygamous or not, is wrong. The law of morality is to do no harm. We are to be harmless, guileless, and full of love. I can see how the way that the early Church practiced polygamy was harmful because it relied on appeal to authority, on fear, and on coercion. When something relies on those types of principles in order to implement it, then it can't be good.

On the other hand, if adults decide to live in a polygamous relationship and they aren't doing so because they have been commanded by some leader and there is no fear of losing their salvation if they don't comply and they have not been manipulated or coerced in anyway, and they understand what is at stake, what the challenges are, and what the risks are, etc. and they want to do this, then it is hard for me to find fault with adults deciding to live in such a relationship (assuming no appeals to authority). What right would I have to tell other sovereigns that they can't do such a thing or that such a thing is evil?

-Finrock

[Thinker]

The facts remain the same, President Nelson is sealed to 2 wives, so was Hunter.

Zina Huntington Jacobs Smith Young was married to 2 living men at the same time, sealed to at least 2 prophets. Eliza Snow Smith Young was also sealed to 2 prophets. Even today, women are sealed to all the men they were married to in life, after they die. I believe God will make provisions so everyone gets to keep their spouses they were married to on earth, if all parties agree.

I also happen to think exactly who you are sealed to doesn't matter as much as we think it does, with our limited earthly experience. Sealings look more like chain mail than they do a linear chain. What matters is that we are sealed to our Heavenly family.

I’ve come to believe that temple work is more for us - and our hearts turning to our ancestors than anything else.

A relat-ionship is as good as the mutual relating. A celestial sealing doesn’t actually create or do much to a relationship but is more like a blueprint of intent. In this life, we can fake relating but when you are more directly your thoughts and intentions after life - I don’t think there’s such faking. It is what it is.

[Finrock]

I’ve come to believe that temple work is more for us - and our hearts turning to our ancestors than anything else.

Me too. In fact, it pretty much has to be. We put a romantic veneer on it, but, when you take that veneer away, at the end of the day, it is the individual who is performing the ritual or the acts, who is having an experience. We can have faith that something else is happening, but, we know with absolute certainty that the experience the individual is having, is happening and is real.

I think when we are in the temple doing "temple work", we need to do it as if we are the only person who will ever know or care about the actions we are taking part in. I think for the most part the reason why we have been commanded to do temple work for our kindred dead is so that we have a reason for us to return to the temple multiple times. This is good and important because the temple rituals and ordinances are powerful ways to teach us about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Father's plan of happiness. We learn in the temple what we need to fulfill in our lives and how to fulfill it. The temple gives us a blueprint as to what we need to actualize in our lives.

-Finrock

[Durzan]

I think stems from a personal hope or desire to live it. I have noticed this in some of the women who strongly defend polygamy- they hope to live it.

Truly, there are both men and women who wish to live it, for various reasons. Some reasons are probably unrighteous, while some are. However, not all who strongly defend polygamy have a desire to live it.

The other reason could be to defend the church, which I don't really understand. The church has banned it for a long time now.
And the few quotes mentioning how polygamy is required and necessary and a higher more noble calling etc causing people to work it out in their head all the ways to make polygamy work. Some use earthy reasons and others use spiritual or heaven reasons. I do not see why the need to defend the church's use of polygamy. It's not even part of any of our lives and likely won't be.

This is also another reason why some would strongly defend polygamy, but it has nothing to do with the fact that Polygamy was banned or not. D&C 132 is still a part of our Scriptural Canon, and played a significant role in our history. Shoot down polygamy and it severely weakens the arguments of our church, and strengthens the arguments of Community of Christ, or other splinter groups. The integrity of Joseph Smith kinda hinges on it, especially when you bring the historical evidence that he did appear to be sealed to more than one women (remember that Sealing was seen as both a way to connect family together and as the eternal counterpart for marriage, if between a man and a woman). Brigham Young's credibility is also at stake, and arguably, his credibility is more dependent on that revelation than Joseph's is. Thats another reason why some staunchly defend polygamy; because it is what connects our current church to the original church that Joseph formed. Take that away, and our claim that we are the true Church and that Brigham Young succeeded Jospeh becomes significantly weaker.

It brings us to arguing and insulting and calling others apostate and attempts to destroy people's spirit over all this defense of polygamy. I have been told all sorts of things and I haven't ever said D&C is wrong or Joseph was wrong or anything else. Telling me I'm basically a bad and immature person, that I'm jealous or obsessed with the sex part, that I don't read scriptures, that I'm spiritually immature, that I have personal trauma that prevents me from seeing polygamy correctly and all sort's of other things. When someone does this kind of bashing and attempts to destroy....they lose all credit in my book. They can say whatever they wish to stay but something is wrong with a person who feels the need to insult others.

Polygamy is a complicated and controversial issue. Regular conversations can easily become argumentative and insulting. Controversial issues are doubly more so because people on both sides are often passionate and often feel like those who attack their arguments are instead attacking them. Thus, there is no surprise to me at all that there would be contention on the subject.

Im not sure why people don't see that when we vouch for polygamy we are degrading both genders. [...] Saying there are more women than men is saying men are less righteous. The men who do this might not realize in all the ways they are degrading themselves and their gender.

Vouching for polygamy is not necessarily degrading to either gender. Rather it is the natural man and by extension sin and satan that degrades us. Saying anything else is ultimately a misdirection.

I am a man, and I fully realize the implications of saying that there may be a slight gender imbalance in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, which is that a surplus of that gender chose not to do all that was necessary for exaltation. Does that make men inherently less righteous than women? Nope, not really. Any sin that isn't covered by the atonement will bar entrance to the celestial kingdom, and that applies equally to both men and women. Thats not degrading at all, because each individual has their own agency... and if slightly more men choose NOT to gain exaltation or to enter the CK, thats on them, not on men as a whole.

What it does say however, is that there would be a number of women who would otherwise qualify for exaltation but for whatever reason still need to be sealed to a man who is also worthy of exaltation. This is why polygamy is an essential part of the Plan of Salvation, why it is a Celestial Law, and why God was so insistent on it being restored to the Earth through Joseph Smith.

Without Polygamous Celestial Marriage, a number of women (who would otherwise fulfill the requirements for exaltation) would be unable to have the chance to be exalted. In this way, women who's husbands broke their vows, women who desired marriage yet were unable to find a husband, and so forth would be extended mercy due to the christ-like service and sacrifice of a worthy man and his first wife. Thus, the Lord has a way for all who are worthy of exaltation to receive it. Just like with Ordinances for the Dead, Polygamy has its essential place in the Plan of Salvation, and without it, God would neither be Just nor Merciful.

However, it is NOT required for all those who wish to be exalted to be in a Polygamous marriage. That is the doctrine of the FLDS Church, and it is blatantly false. Instead, Monogamy is the preferred standard and Polygamy is an exception meant to extend mercy and justice to those under unusual circumstances, allowing those who are worthy but who would otherwise not be exalted in any other circumstance to have that opportunity.

The gymnastics and wild ideas people come up with to defend polygamy are shortsighted at best.

Again, polygamy is a complicated issue. Complicated issues often require complicated thought processes to untangle them. That is not gymnastics or wild ideas anymore than doing complicated math to figure something out is. Complex issues are really just a bunch of simpler issues or problems all tied together. If you can break down such issues into their component parts, it becomes easier to deal with and understand. Such was the case with me. Through the enlightening power of the Spirit of God, I was able to break it apart and see its components, learn to understand each of them, and then reassemble the parts to understand the principle as a whole.

[Finrock]

Shoot down polygamy and it severely weakens the arguments of our church, and strengthens the arguments of Community of Christ, or other splinter groups. The integrity of Joseph Smith kinda hinges on it, especially when you bring the historical evidence that he did appear to be sealed to more than one women (remember that Sealing was seen as both a way to connect family together and as the eternal counterpart for marriage, if between a man and a woman). Brigham Young's credibility is also at stake, and arguably, his credibility is more dependent on that revelation than Joseph's is. Thats another reason why some staunchly defend polygamy; because it is what connects our current church to the original church that Joseph formed. Take that away, and our claim that we are the true Church and that Brigham Young succeeded Jospeh becomes significantly weaker.

To a person who is interested in pursuing truth, this can't be a good reason for rejecting an idea. If the truth leads to conclusions that are unflattering or problematic to the Church, then that is what it does. So be it. Nobody need apologize for speaking truth just because the truth might imply something negative about our chosen social group.

Also, I don't agree that shooting down polygamy necessarily weakens the Church. If the way that the Church practiced polygamy was wrong, then I believe acknowledging whatever the truth is strengthens our Church because it shows integrity and loyalty to truth as opposed to loyalty to a sociocentric paradigm. In the eternal scheme of things, truth always builds up. Truth is Light and Life.

-Finrock

[Thinker]

I’ve come to believe that temple work is more for us - and our hearts turning to our ancestors than anything else.

Me too. In fact, it pretty much has to be. We put a romantic veneer on it, but, when you take that veneer away, at the end of the day, it is the individual who is performing the ritual or the acts, who is having an experience. We can have faith that something else is happening, but, we know with absolute certainty that the experience the individual is having, is happening and is real.

I think when we are in the temple doing "temple work", we need to do it as if we are the only person who will ever know or care about the actions we are taking part in. I think for the most part the reason why we have been commanded to do temple work for our kindred dead is so that we have a reason for us to return to the temple multiple times. This is good and important because the temple rituals and ordinances are powerful ways to teach us about the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Father's plan of happiness. We learn in the temple what we need to fulfill in our lives and how to fulfill it. The temple gives us a blueprint as to what we need to actualize in our lives.

-Finrock

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you mentioned except I don’t go to the temple anymore because I can’t honestly say I sustain the church leaders - I don’t trust them with money & I give my tithes to the poor. And I see the temple as too exclusive to be as I used to think it was. It is beautiful inside & out but what it represents with its $20,000 rugs is not what I believe God is about. I’ve seen too heart-breaking poverty to think that God’s ultimate way of worship requires such extravagance. I don’t mean to be offensive. It’s not all-or-nothing. God looks on each person’s heart & what matters most is intent. And I believe many who go to the temple do so with intent to do & feel GOoD.

My temples now are similar to Moses’ and Jesus’s. And they teach me a lot and help me feel closer to God.

[Durzan]

To a person who is interested in pursuing truth, this can't be a good reason for rejecting an idea. If the truth leads to conclusions that are unflattering or problematic to the Church, then that is what it does. So be it. Nobody need apologize for speaking truth just because the truth might imply something negative about our chosen social group.

Heh. You'd be surprised at the number of people who don't really care about pursuing truth. Pointing out why some defend polygamy (in defense of the church) doesn't mean that all those people are doing it for the right reasons. Not to mention that there are plenty of people who will attack polygamy for the very reason that it appears to be a weak spot of the church as well.

Anyway, I seek Truth, but I do so on the Lord's own timetable. I ponder and puzzle out lots of obscure doctrine, and in time the Lord will see fit to guide and inspire me.

Thats partially why I took a step back from the Polygamy arguments. I was being blown around one way or the other, forced to flip flop between the two stances. I had to take a step back and resolve to throw out whatever previous biases I had and start over. So I did just that, and it payed off.

Also, I don't agree that shooting down polygamy necessarily weakens the Church. If the way that the Church practiced polygamy was wrong, then I believe acknowledging whatever the truth is strengthens our Church because it shows integrity and loyalty to truth as opposed to loyalty to a sociocentric paradigm. In the eternal scheme of things, truth always builds up. Truth is Light and Life.

-Finrock

Oh ho ho, yes it would. It might not sink the old ship Zion, but it would certainly cause a huge enough leak to cause a lot of problems for everyone. With D&C 132 intact, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were simply enacting a commandment instilled by God, even if it led to quite a few problems. Without it, not only is Celestial Marriage tossed out the window and proven false (a key doctrine that if lost would be a huge blow to the morale of Members across the board), but it also retroactively paints Joseph and Brigham as being guilty of Adultery and Conspiracy (and likely exerting Unrighteous Dominion too), which means that both would be at risk of actually being Fallen Prophets... Which means that the Church would have no real power or priesthood authority (as God would've called another in their place... Ostensibly one of the prophets of CoC), and that we've been in a state of Apostasy for the last hundred years at least. Meanwhile, the Community of Christ will likely be proven to be the one true church after all.

If Polygamy is definitively taken out and proven to be completely false (which would require 132 to become de-canonized), at best we'd probably lose at least a sizable chunk of our membership and be in a state of condemnation by the Lord with leaders who have been mostly cut off from the power and inspiration of the Priesthood due to unrighteous dominion back in the 1830's (which frankly isn't much better than the church self-destructing), and at worst it would cause a chain reaction that would result in the complete self destruction of the entire church. In either case, barring the Marred Servant or some other prophet like unto Joseph stepping in to save the day, I fail to see how we could survive that. The general membership is so dependent on the First Presidency and the Twelve, that if something like this happened, their brains would be metaphorically fried.

Thats the absolute worse case scenario and not that likely to happen, but still. D&C 132, and by extension, polygamy, are literally one of the Church's biggest weak spots. Its fairly heavily armored, and can withstand some glancing blows, but one powerful direct hit in that weak spot is potentially as dangerous to us as a direct hit to the Thermal Exhaust port on the Death Star.

Declaration 1 is one thing that is literally keeping the church from flying apart, because at least it specifies and reaffirms that we are under no obligation to be polygamous, and that doing so without God's direct commandment is a grievous sin.

If the majority of the membership ever seriously comes to believe that even one of the revelations purported to be written by JS in the D&C is false, then there will be hell to pay barring some miracle. It would shake their testimony to the core. Its literally has the potential to be that dangerous.

Truth is Truth, and if the Truth is revealed and it ultimately results in the destruction of the Church, then so be it. God always has a contingency plan. Its something he does way better than Batman. That being said, I know that D&C 132 was indeed inspired of God, so this is probably needless speculation.

[JohnnyL]

A lot of men on here suppose that they would be the ones to have many wives. Unless you were wealthy and well connected, odds are that you would have an extended virginity and bachelorhood, if you married at all.

So those who argue that men have a higher sex-drive have to understand that for most Utah men during polygamy you would have had to bridle your passions for an extra decade or more. Unless your uncle or father was a prophet, apostle, stake president. Or you happened to be a prolific money maker, you were more likely to be a 40 year old virgin than sitting pretty with your 3 wives.

No, I'd just marry, like I did.

[JohnnyL]

When a man and woman divorce they won't divorce the sealing because the sealing is what matters. Their marriage is over and they are not sealed together as man and wife once divorced. But the sealing remains in effect for the sake of the blessing it brings.

Actually, they are still sealed.

[mtm411]

They decanonized the lectures on faith, by Joseph Smith so there is precedence to decanonizing things written by Joseph Smith.

Also, 132 replaced the previous section 101, and then 109. So it isn't like they have never taken away or added to the Doctrine and Covenants. The prior section 101 denounced polygamy strongly.

I am of the belief that the D&C as well as all conference talks ever written are much like the documents that Mormon abridged from hundreds of years of Nephite documents. I am not convinced that everything in the D&C will be canon in 200 years. It's just the collection of the first 20 years of the restoration.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... cing_it.3F

I feel we are at the beginning of our restoration. Changing the D&C may alienate some of the older hardliners, but a bunch always leave when there are changes. Thousands left when blacks got the priesthood, when polygamy was taken away, when the temple ceremony changed in the 80s. We are a changing and evolving religion.

To a person who is interested in pursuing truth, this can't be a good reason for rejecting an idea. If the truth leads to conclusions that are unflattering or problematic to the Church, then that is what it does. So be it. Nobody need apologize for speaking truth just because the truth might imply something negative about our chosen social group.

Heh. You'd be surprised at the number of people who don't really care about pursuing truth. Pointing out why some defend polygamy (in defense of the church) doesn't mean that all those people are doing it for the right reasons. Not to mention that there are plenty of people who will attack polygamy for the very reason that it appears to be a weak spot of the church as well.

Anyway, I seek Truth, but I do so on the Lord's own timetable. I ponder and puzzle out lots of obscure doctrine, and in time the Lord will see fit to guide and inspire me.

Thats partially why I took a step back from the Polygamy arguments. I was being blown around one way or the other, forced to flip flop between the two stances. I had to take a step back and resolve to throw out whatever previous biases I had and start over. So I did just that, and it payed off.

Also, I don't agree that shooting down polygamy necessarily weakens the Church. If the way that the Church practiced polygamy was wrong, then I believe acknowledging whatever the truth is strengthens our Church because it shows integrity and loyalty to truth as opposed to loyalty to a sociocentric paradigm. In the eternal scheme of things, truth always builds up. Truth is Light and Life.

-Finrock

Oh ho ho, yes it would. It might not sink the old ship Zion, but it would certainly cause a huge enough leak to cause a lot of problems for everyone. With D&C 132 intact, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were simply enacting a commandment instilled by God, even if it led to quite a few problems. Without it, not only is Celestial Marriage tossed out the window and proven false (a key doctrine that if lost would be a huge blow to the morale of Members across the board), but it also retroactively paints Joseph and Brigham as being guilty of Adultery and Conspiracy (and likely exerting Unrighteous Dominion too), which means that both would be at risk of actually being Fallen Prophets... Which means that the Church would have no real power or priesthood authority (as God would've called another in their place... Ostensibly one of the prophets of CoC), and that we've been in a state of Apostasy for the last hundred years at least. Meanwhile, the Community of Christ will likely be proven to be the one true church after all.

If Polygamy is definitively taken out and proven to be completely false (which would require 132 to become de-canonized), at best we'd probably lose at least a sizable chunk of our membership and be in a state of condemnation by the Lord with leaders who have been mostly cut off from the power and inspiration of the Priesthood due to unrighteous dominion back in the 1830's (which frankly isn't much better than the church self-destructing), and at worst it would cause a chain reaction that would result in the complete self destruction of the entire church. In either case, barring the Marred Servant or some other prophet like unto Joseph stepping in to save the day, I fail to see how we could survive that. The general membership is so dependent on the First Presidency and the Twelve, that if something like this happened, their brains would be metaphorically fried.

Thats the absolute worse case scenario and not that likely to happen, but still. D&C 132, and by extension, polygamy, are literally one of the Church's biggest weak spots. Its fairly heavily armored, and can withstand some glancing blows, but one powerful direct hit in that weak spot is potentially as dangerous to us as a direct hit to the Thermal Exhaust port on the Death Star.

Declaration 1 is one thing that is literally keeping the church from flying apart, because at least it specifies and reaffirms that we are under no obligation to be polygamous, and that doing so without God's direct commandment is a grievous sin.

If the majority of the membership ever seriously comes to believe that even one of the revelations purported to be written by JS in the D&C is false, then there will be hell to pay barring some miracle. It would shake their testimony to the core. Its literally has the potential to be that dangerous.

Truth is Truth, and if the Truth is revealed and it ultimately results in the destruction of the Church, then so be it. God always has a contingency plan. Its something he does way better than Batman. That being said, I know that D&C 132 was indeed inspired of God, so this is probably needless speculation.

[mtm411]

Also, polygamy and that fact that some in our religion believe it will come back someday is hard on the faith of many. By denouncing it, I think you would get more converts than those that couldn't handle it would leave.

[MMbelieve]

When a man and woman divorce they won't divorce the sealing because the sealing is what matters. Their marriage is over and they are not sealed together as man and wife once divorced. But the sealing remains in effect for the sake of the blessing it brings.

Actually, they are still sealed.

Actually they are not. Read church text on this matter.

[JohnnyL]

In a polygamist society we see older men often married to women quite younger than themselves.

Oh my gosh, like that does not happen in monogamist society:

https://www.thisisinsider.com/celebrity ... 2-years-28

Why so much drama?

Of course it happens in monogamy and the situation applies to those marriages as well. When Nelson passes on, him being nearly 94 years old, what shall his wife do? She is a lot younger and will be expected to be alone? Can a prophets widow remarry and not be looked down upon? Don't women need companionship as well as the old widows need?

You want to discredit the concerns brought up with polygamy by saying it happens in monogamy as well. You actually think that by finding flaws in monogamy (man and woman always struggle to learn and grow together) that it somehow makes polygamy look okay (multiplied issues and factors of the same old hardships of man and woman learning and growing together). Except in polygamy the people just need to learn to operate without killing each other, they don't have to actually become one.

So you are saying that the answer from the Spirit, to each of them, to marry, was WRONG.
Because... what, it's just plain wrong for any old gross yucky man to marry a beautiful innocent young lady? It's on par with child abuse, yes? And no doubt there is no love, just lust. And when he is 70 and she is 34, he'll find another 14 year old, no doubt, right? Or what??

She becomes a widow, yes. Single, like the many years before she married him. My relative married young to an older man and went 50 years a widow. Sure Sis. Nelson can remarry, why not? Oh WAIT, it's those social mores again, right?

The same problems that exist in polygamy can exist in monogamy, and the same situations can, too. Which is what you described. Which is what Fiannan pointed out. You're saying that is a sign that polygamy is bad; well, is it a sign monogamy is bad, too?

[JohnnyL]

When a man and woman divorce they won't divorce the sealing because the sealing is what matters. Their marriage is over and they are not sealed together as man and wife once divorced. But the sealing remains in effect for the sake of the blessing it brings.

Actually, they are still sealed.

Actually they are not. Read church text on this matter.

I have. I could read more. Reference?

[MMbelieve]

In a polygamist society we see older men often married to women quite younger than themselves.

Oh my gosh, like that does not happen in monogamist society:

https://www.thisisinsider.com/celebrity ... 2-years-28

Why so much drama?

Of course it happens in monogamy and the situation applies to those marriages as well. When Nelson passes on, him being nearly 94 years old, what shall his wife do? She is a lot younger and will be expected to be alone? Can a prophets widow remarry and not be looked down upon? Don't women need companionship as well as the old widows need?

You want to discredit the concerns brought up with polygamy by saying it happens in monogamy as well. You actually think that by finding flaws in monogamy (man and woman always struggle to learn and grow together) that it somehow makes polygamy look okay (multiplied issues and factors of the same old hardships of man and woman learning and growing together). Except in polygamy the people just need to learn to operate without killing each other, they don't have to actually become one.

So you are saying that the answer from the Spirit, to each of them, to marry, was WRONG.
Because... what, it's just plain wrong for any old gross yucky man to marry a beautiful innocent young lady? It's on par with child abuse, yes? And no doubt there is no love, just lust. And when he is 70 and she is 34, he'll find another 14 year old, no doubt, right? Or what??

She becomes a widow, yes. Single, like the many years before she married him. My relative married young to an older man and went 50 years a widow. Sure Sis. Nelson can remarry, why not? Oh WAIT, it's those social mores again, right?

The same problems that exist in polygamy can exist in monogamy, and the same situations can, too. Which is what you described. Which is what Fiannan pointed out. You're saying that is a sign that polygamy is bad; well, is it a sign monogamy is bad, too?

Polygamy doesn't help make it easier to get along, it complicates things more.

All the problems people have in monogamy are also in polgamy, just multiplied and added to.

[mtm411]

It is wrong every time an adult marries a 14 year old. Are you serious?! Also a lot of the old men marrying underaged girls were religious leaders. It's pretty hard to not consent when the man who has told you he has the authority to get you to heaven or not wants to marry you and have sex with you. How could that possibly be informed consent? Have you met 14 year olds? I don't think they were much different then than they are now. If anything, puberty happens earlier for girls now.

Some monogamists have issues living monogamy in God's way, no doubt, but that doesn't mean we all get to give up on marriage and have sex whenever and wherever with whomever. God wants us in nuclear families, and the proclaimation on the family even says children are ENTITLED to being born this way. That is a pretty strong endorsement for nuclear families.

In a polygamist society we see older men often married to women quite younger than themselves.

Oh my gosh, like that does not happen in monogamist society:

https://www.thisisinsider.com/celebrity ... 2-years-28

Why so much drama?

Of course it happens in monogamy and the situation applies to those marriages as well. When Nelson passes on, him being nearly 94 years old, what shall his wife do? She is a lot younger and will be expected to be alone? Can a prophets widow remarry and not be looked down upon? Don't women need companionship as well as the old widows need?

You want to discredit the concerns brought up with polygamy by saying it happens in monogamy as well. You actually think that by finding flaws in monogamy (man and woman always struggle to learn and grow together) that it somehow makes polygamy look okay (multiplied issues and factors of the same old hardships of man and woman learning and growing together). Except in polygamy the people just need to learn to operate without killing each other, they don't have to actually become one.

So you are saying that the answer from the Spirit, to each of them, to marry, was WRONG.
Because... what, it's just plain wrong for any old gross yucky man to marry a beautiful innocent young lady? It's on par with child abuse, yes? And no doubt there is no love, just lust. And when he is 70 and she is 34, he'll find another 14 year old, no doubt, right? Or what??

She becomes a widow, yes. Single, like the many years before she married him. My relative married young to an older man and went 50 years a widow. Sure Sis. Nelson can remarry, why not? Oh WAIT, it's those social mores again, right?

The same problems that exist in polygamy can exist in monogamy, and the same situations can, too. Which is what you described. Which is what Fiannan pointed out. You're saying that is a sign that polygamy is bad; well, is it a sign monogamy is bad, too?

[mtm411]

Exactly. Being married to at least 6 wives didn't make David not commit adultry and then murder. What he did to Bathsheba was rape. She was ritualistically bathing per Jewish law in an area she thought no one could see her. She went to the roof, for crying out loud. When you are summoned by a king and he wants to have his way with you, back then you did what you must. You saw what happened to Uriah when he didn't do as the King wanted.

It isn't like polygamy protects you from the same temptations that you have in monogamy. If anything, it's worse because you're always dating. Always looking for your next score. How can you not lust after women when you are evaluating them constantly? A married man or woman needs to have their heart and lust on lockdown,

Oh my gosh, like that does not happen in monogamist society:

https://www.thisisinsider.com/celebrity ... 2-years-28

Why so much drama?

Of course it happens in monogamy and the situation applies to those marriages as well. When Nelson passes on, him being nearly 94 years old, what shall his wife do? She is a lot younger and will be expected to be alone? Can a prophets widow remarry and not be looked down upon? Don't women need companionship as well as the old widows need?

You want to discredit the concerns brought up with polygamy by saying it happens in monogamy as well. You actually think that by finding flaws in monogamy (man and woman always struggle to learn and grow together) that it somehow makes polygamy look okay (multiplied issues and factors of the same old hardships of man and woman learning and growing together). Except in polygamy the people just need to learn to operate without killing each other, they don't have to actually become one.

So you are saying that the answer from the Spirit, to each of them, to marry, was WRONG.
Because... what, it's just plain wrong for any old gross yucky man to marry a beautiful innocent young lady? It's on par with child abuse, yes? And no doubt there is no love, just lust. And when he is 70 and she is 34, he'll find another 14 year old, no doubt, right? Or what??

She becomes a widow, yes. Single, like the many years before she married him. My relative married young to an older man and went 50 years a widow. Sure Sis. Nelson can remarry, why not? Oh WAIT, it's those social mores again, right?

The same problems that exist in polygamy can exist in monogamy, and the same situations can, too. Which is what you described. Which is what Fiannan pointed out. You're saying that is a sign that polygamy is bad; well, is it a sign monogamy is bad, too?

Polygamy doesn't help make it easier to get along, it complicates things more.

All the problems people have in monogamy are also in polgamy, just multiplied and added to.

[Crackers]

Are you really asking a question? Or are you trying to prove your point?

Are you really asking a question? Yeah, I am really asking a question and I'm also trying to see if anyone has a counter argument to what I'm saying.

Polygamy doesn't have to be evil. No.

OK. I agree.

But...your scenario is unlikely. That's a whole lot of variables that need to be satisfied perfectly. Is that even possible?

How did you determine that its unlikely? First, its not that many variables. Many of the things I stated overlap. I was just being thorough to make sure I covered all the bases. You think its unlikely that there are adults who are intelligent, responsible, knowledgeable, and free from coercion and manipulation?

My point with the child was that many wicked people use these pleas to say what they are doing is okay and not immoral. They do classify morality as being relative.

OK, but you were responding to what I said so your post ought to be relevant and respond to the point I was making.

My question acknowledges all of the objections that I have seen given as to why polygamy is wrong. I agree that the way that it was practiced by the early Mormon Church is wrong. But, the objections that have been given are not universal or intrinsic to polygamy. If they are, then this has not yet been demonstrated or proven.

-Finrock

Honestly, I think what your asking for is not so easy to satisfy.
No matter the reason given to counter, there will always be an exception somewhere that defies the claim. Always an exception to the rule kind of thing. With how different human beings are and all the different cultures and time periods. It's likely impossible to say that polygamy is morally wrong across the board.

It must come down to God's law. And many cultures have different God's they adhere to. The almighty God has said that monogamy is his wish and his rule.

That's all I have for you.
Maybe someone else can articulate something fantastic to add.

First, I'm just using MMbelieve's post as a platform to continue my ideas. This isn't a direct response to the quoted post.

I believe there is a way to practice polygamy that avoids pretty much all of the objections that have been given as to why polygamy is evil/wrong. I reject the way polygamy was practiced in the early Church. If there is to be a polygamous relationship that is good, then there can be no element of compulsion or coercion. Meaning, I don't believe God ever commanded a person to enter a polygamous relationship under threat of losing their salvation. I don't agree that polygamy is the "celestial law". I don't believe polygamy is required for exaltation. Teaching a person that they are displeasing God if they don't accept polygamy, is wrong, and any other ideas like this. An adult man marrying a young teenage girl, whether polygamous or not, is wrong. The law of morality is to do no harm. We are to be harmless, guileless, and full of love. I can see how the way that the early Church practiced polygamy was harmful because it relied on appeal to authority, on fear, and on coercion. When something relies on those types of principles in order to implement it, then it can't be good.

On the other hand, if adults decide to live in a polygamous relationship and they aren't doing so because they have been commanded by some leader and there is no fear of losing their salvation if they don't comply and they have not been manipulated or coerced in anyway, and they understand what is at stake, what the challenges are, and what the risks are, etc. and they want to do this, then it is hard for me to find fault with adults deciding to live in such a relationship (assuming no appeals to authority). What right would I have to tell other sovereigns that they can't do such a thing or that such a thing is evil?

-Finrock

How about as long as they all agree to sterilization and not to adopt any children?

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

I believe in liberty and freedom. That the premise of the gospel is that intelligence is sovereign. I believe that if there are consenting adults, who freely enter in to a polygamous relationship, that they ought to be allowed to do so if they so choose.

Finrock, I can appreciate your points here. But to be clear, I also believe that people should have the right to freely assemble themselves in whatever living arrangement they desire. People should have the right to dehumanize themselves.

I do maintain that all polygamy is morally wrong and absolutely contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[JohnnyL]

Oh my gosh, like that does not happen in monogamist society:

https://www.thisisinsider.com/celebrity ... 2-years-28

Why so much drama?

Of course it happens in monogamy and the situation applies to those marriages as well. When Nelson passes on, him being nearly 94 years old, what shall his wife do? She is a lot younger and will be expected to be alone? Can a prophets widow remarry and not be looked down upon? Don't women need companionship as well as the old widows need?

You want to discredit the concerns brought up with polygamy by saying it happens in monogamy as well. You actually think that by finding flaws in monogamy (man and woman always struggle to learn and grow together) that it somehow makes polygamy look okay (multiplied issues and factors of the same old hardships of man and woman learning and growing together). Except in polygamy the people just need to learn to operate without killing each other, they don't have to actually become one.

So you are saying that the answer from the Spirit, to each of them, to marry, was WRONG.
Because... what, it's just plain wrong for any old gross yucky man to marry a beautiful innocent young lady? It's on par with child abuse, yes? And no doubt there is no love, just lust. And when he is 70 and she is 34, he'll find another 14 year old, no doubt, right? Or what??

She becomes a widow, yes. Single, like the many years before she married him. My relative married young to an older man and went 50 years a widow. Sure Sis. Nelson can remarry, why not? Oh WAIT, it's those social mores again, right?

The same problems that exist in polygamy can exist in monogamy, and the same situations can, too. Which is what you described. Which is what Fiannan pointed out. You're saying that is a sign that polygamy is bad; well, is it a sign monogamy is bad, too?

Polygamy doesn't help make it easier to get along, it complicates things more.

All the problems people have in monogamy are also in polgamy, just multiplied and added to.

Maybe. Marriage to two, for example, could make it twice as bad, or twice as good, or balance it out for the man. If problems and sorrows are more, sounds like joys are more, too.

[MMbelieve]

It is wrong every time an adult marries a 14 year old. Are you serious?! Also a lot of the old men marrying underaged girls were religious leaders. It's pretty hard to not consent when the man who has told you he has the authority to get you to heaven or not wants to marry you and have sex with you. How could that possibly be informed consent? Have you met 14 year olds? I don't think they were much different then than they are now. If anything, puberty happens earlier for girls now.

Some monogamists have issues living monogamy in God's way, no doubt, but that doesn't mean we all get to give up on marriage and have sex whenever and wherever with whomever. God wants us in nuclear families, and the proclaimation on the family even says children are ENTITLED to being born this way. That is a pretty strong endorsement for nuclear families.

Oh my gosh, like that does not happen in monogamist society:

https://www.thisisinsider.com/celebrity ... 2-years-28

Why so much drama?

Of course it happens in monogamy and the situation applies to those marriages as well. When Nelson passes on, him being nearly 94 years old, what shall his wife do? She is a lot younger and will be expected to be alone? Can a prophets widow remarry and not be looked down upon? Don't women need companionship as well as the old widows need?

You want to discredit the concerns brought up with polygamy by saying it happens in monogamy as well. You actually think that by finding flaws in monogamy (man and woman always struggle to learn and grow together) that it somehow makes polygamy look okay (multiplied issues and factors of the same old hardships of man and woman learning and growing together). Except in polygamy the people just need to learn to operate without killing each other, they don't have to actually become one.

So you are saying that the answer from the Spirit, to each of them, to marry, was WRONG.
Because... what, it's just plain wrong for any old gross yucky man to marry a beautiful innocent young lady? It's on par with child abuse, yes? And no doubt there is no love, just lust. And when he is 70 and she is 34, he'll find another 14 year old, no doubt, right? Or what??

She becomes a widow, yes. Single, like the many years before she married him. My relative married young to an older man and went 50 years a widow. Sure Sis. Nelson can remarry, why not? Oh WAIT, it's those social mores again, right?

The same problems that exist in polygamy can exist in monogamy, and the same situations can, too. Which is what you described. Which is what Fiannan pointed out. You're saying that is a sign that polygamy is bad; well, is it a sign monogamy is bad, too?

Yes, lockdown is a great way to say it. Fiercely loyal is how the church puts it. I don't see how thats possible with multiple spouses. Of course some would say that each woman is his wife and he is loyal to each of them but it's hard to accept this is what fiercely loyal means. Causing your wife to ever doubt herself with you is already a failure of this. More than one woman will almost surely bring doubts and comparisons to the women's mind. In monogamy, fiercely loyal has none of that.