Polygamy best tactic to destroy a family

[mtm411]

If a woman is an abusive monster, then she only attacks her single husband. If she had many husbands and they all had to submit to her then it would be even worse because she would make more people miserable. What aren't you getting? I don't really think one woman should have 58 husbands either.

I didn't say communism wasn't bad for society or for families, just that polygamy is much worse. Every bit as bad as having parents who go through multiple partners and have multiple children without marriage. At least with gay marriage it is less likely that children are affected.

No one should ever be abusive to a spouse. I think women are just as often abusive, just men are much stronger so it is more likely to end up in the death of the woman. How many news stories are there about a man who feels rejected taking that rage and murdering his love interest? It isn't that women never do it, it's just that when men lose their minds people end up dead more often.

Also, not sure if you've noticed, but every successful man I have ever met married a strong and successful woman. She may not be in an office, but she's smart, hard working and supportive. Confident men don't marry doormats.

Right. What if the man is an abusive monster? Then many women are in a horrible situation. He could be infertile, half of couples who can't get pregnant, the cause is the man. He could deny many women motherhood in that case.

Then again, when I brought up poor Hagar, I was told that suffering is good and what life is about and makes us stronger. Men are that they might have joy, females excluded.

And yes, polygamy is more destructive to children than communism.

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.

It's not just how bad or how good is it going to be. Typical male thinking. There are complicated variables to factor in and any man who thinks that is easy, is a fool. This is probably why there is lots of expectation from men onto women in this andrrangement to make it work peacefully and not be jealous or contentious. This is one of the complicated variables a man has to deal with with polygamy. He not only has to understand "woman" but he needs to understand the dynamics between women too. I don't know ANY man who can or wants to do this.

And by the way, the way you stated your comment you seemed to be confirming what many already think of polygamy...that's it's for the man.

This is funny, sexist but funny!!!!

What if a woman is an abusive monster? I know plenty of them. It’s not manly to talk about it.

Typical to our emotional society, pull the victim card before it happens and shame men.

[Fiannan]

I didn't say communism wasn't bad for society or for families, just that polygamy is much worse.

Wait, are you majoring in sociology?

[mtm411]

Please don't turn this into me defending communism. That isn't what this is about. Communism is terrible.

Polygamy was never practiced on the scale that communism was and is unrelated.

I didn't say communism wasn't bad for society or for families, just that polygamy is much worse.

Wait, are you majoring in sociology?

[Fiannan]

Please don't turn this into me defending communism. That isn't what this is about. Communism is terrible.

Polygamy was never practiced on the scale that communism was and is unrelated.

I didn't say communism wasn't bad for society or for families, just that polygamy is much worse.

Wait, are you majoring in sociology?

Then if they are unrelated why does your sentence I quoted contain both a reference to communism and to polygamy?

[Fiannan]

Satan is the author of communism. If one says Satan is the author of polygamy then they really ought to read their Bible.

[mtm411]

It was obviously in response to the previous poster asking me point blank if polygamy was worse than communism. Your reading comprehension skills could use some work.

Please don't turn this into me defending communism. That isn't what this is about. Communism is terrible.

Polygamy was never practiced on the scale that communism was and is unrelated.

I didn't say communism wasn't bad for society or for families, just that polygamy is much worse.

Wait, are you majoring in sociology?

Then if they are unrelated why does your sentence I quoted contain both a reference to communism and to polygamy?

[Fiannan]

It was obviously in response to the previous poster asking me point blank if polygamy was worse than communism. Your reading comprehension skills could use some work.

Then enlighten me, oh great and intelligent one, on a moral scale, what is more evil, communism or polygamy?

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

After death, they can seal her to all her husbands in this life.

Can you show me the policy and or doctrine to support this? I'm not saying your wrong, this polyandrus construct is contrary to my understanding of the Church's position.

[Fiannan]

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

So some here would say that polygamy destroys families more than communism (and other forms of oppressive and destructive governments), or
selfishness and laziness, laws, poverty/taxes/burdens, feminism, and same sex marriage.

Would that be a true statement?

Polygamy is an alternative sexual lifestyle. Communism is a socio-economic construct. Apples - Oranges comparison .

[Sarah]

After death, they can seal her to all her husbands in this life.

Can you show me the policy and or doctrine to support this? I'm not saying your wrong, this polyandrus construct is contrary to my understanding of the Church's position.

If I go on FamilySearch and request ordinances to be performed for a deceased woman, I can have her sealed to all her husbands, and the children sealed to each couple. Who is allowed to be sealed to who after they are dead is more of a policy thing more than it is doctrine. The doctrine is the Law of Chastity. All we need to do is listen to what is said in the Temple to know the doctrine. Obviously sec. 132 is doctrine, but vs. 41 allows the possibility of polyandry, and the revelation clearly says that this revelation is only a part of the "Law of the Priesthood." Brigham said that sealed women could leave their husband for another higher in authority, and obviously this wasn't spelled out in sec. 132.

In other threads, there have been a few stories of women being allowed to be sealed to more than one husband while she was still alive, but this seems to be only with special permission or by special invitation.

I can see the reasoning behind sealing the children of a second husband to the first, if only to make sure the first has posterity if he didn't already. (Which seems weird because he was never a father to them on earth.) But I think of all the men who died young who didn't have the chance to marry and have posterity, and all the women who never marry, and what becomes of them? When will they marry and gain posterity? Do these singles receive spouses before their resurrection or after? My guess is that there is marriage after the resurrection, despite what most people believe, otherwise, as spirits they would have to be sealed by proxy, but with no earthly spouse, those choices would have to be made as spirits.

[MMbelieve]

So some here would say that polygamy destroys families more than communism (and other forms of oppressive and destructive governments), or
selfishness and laziness, laws, poverty/taxes/burdens, feminism, and same sex marriage.

Would that be a true statement?

Polygamy is an alternative sexual lifestyle. Communism is a socio-economic construct. Apples - Oranges comparison .

Let's compare apples to apples then.
Alternative sexual lifestlyes.
I don't think this has been directly addressed yet, at least not fully.

[Fiannan]

You say now:

Polygamy is an alternative sexual lifestyle. Communism is a socio-economic construct. Apples - Oranges comparison .

You said before:

I didn't say communism wasn't bad for society or for families, just that polygamy is much worse.

[MMbelieve]

After death, they can seal her to all her husbands in this life.

Can you show me the policy and or doctrine to support this? I'm not saying your wrong, this polyandrus construct is contrary to my understanding of the Church's position.

If I go on FamilySearch and request ordinances to be performed for a deceased woman, I can have her sealed to all her husbands, and the children sealed to each couple. Who is allowed to be sealed to who after they are dead is more of a policy thing more than it is doctrine. The doctrine is the Law of Chastity. All we need to do is listen to what is said in the Temple to know the doctrine. Obviously sec. 132 is doctrine, but vs. 41 allows the possibility of polyandry, and the revelation clearly says that this revelation is only a part of the "Law of the Priesthood." Brigham said that sealed women could leave their husband for another higher in authority, and obviously this wasn't spelled out in sec. 132.

In other threads, there have been a few stories of women being allowed to be sealed to more than one husband while she was still alive, but this seems to be only with special permission or by special invitation.

I can see the reasoning behind sealing the children of a second husband to the first, if only to make sure the first has posterity if he didn't already. (Which seems weird because he was never a father to them on earth.) But I think of all the men who died young who didn't have the chance to marry and have posterity, and all the women who never marry, and what becomes of them? When will they marry and gain posterity? Do these singles receive spouses before their resurrection or after? My guess is that there is marriage after the resurrection, despite what most people believe, otherwise, as spirits they would have to be sealed by proxy, but with no earthly spouse, those choices would have to be made as spirits.

Yes, there is so much that we do not understand or know. We can speculate but it's likely that we will still be incorrect.

[Fiannan]

Let's compare apples to apples then.
Alternative sexual lifestlyes.
I don't think this has been directly addressed yet, at least not fully.

What, nudists? Furies? Vampire clubs?

[MMbelieve]

Let's compare apples to apples then.
Alternative sexual lifestlyes.
I don't think this has been directly addressed yet, at least not fully.

What, nudists? Furies? Vampire clubs?

Alternative sexual lifestyles is an easy one I thought.

[WildOliveBranch]

"Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy."

Debate.

Thanks for your bravery in the way you worded your original post.

Even though some of your opposers in this thread are saying this is topic is dead & that we don't practice polygamy anymore, it's actually *not* because it's right there in D&C 132. Men get to feel satisfied that they'll have many lovers if they "get to the Celestial Kingdom," & women get to feel like they have to share true love with who-knows-how-many "sisters" even if she works her butt off doing everything "right" in this life to "get to the Celestial Kingdom." I agree with the troubling nature of this conundrum. I would love to hear it's from Satan & not The Lord, as you posted in the first post. I wish I felt sure about it one way or the other.

[JohnnyL]

After death, they can seal her to all her husbands in this life.

Can you show me the policy and or doctrine to support this? I'm not saying your wrong, this polyandrus construct is contrary to my understanding of the Church's position.

If I go on FamilySearch and request ordinances to be performed for a deceased woman, I can have her sealed to all her husbands, and the children sealed to each couple. Who is allowed to be sealed to who after they are dead is more of a policy thing more than it is doctrine. The doctrine is the Law of Chastity. All we need to do is listen to what is said in the Temple to know the doctrine. Obviously sec. 132 is doctrine, but vs. 41 allows the possibility of polyandry, and the revelation clearly says that this revelation is only a part of the "Law of the Priesthood." Brigham said that sealed women could leave their husband for another higher in authority, and obviously this wasn't spelled out in sec. 132.

In other threads, there have been a few stories of women being allowed to be sealed to more than one husband while she was still alive, but this seems to be only with special permission or by special invitation.

I can see the reasoning behind sealing the children of a second husband to the first, if only to make sure the first has posterity if he didn't already. (Which seems weird because he was never a father to them on earth.) But I think of all the men who died young who didn't have the chance to marry and have posterity, and all the women who never marry, and what becomes of them? When will they marry and gain posterity? Do these singles receive spouses before their resurrection or after? My guess is that there is marriage after the resurrection, despite what most people believe, otherwise, as spirits they would have to be sealed by proxy, but with no earthly spouse, those choices would have to be made as spirits.

They are sealed in ordinance, but the Holy Spirit will only seal one of them. She will have to choose.

[JohnnyL]

Couldn't be sealed to both maintains her sealing to husband #1, to whom husband #2 children are also sealed.

More? This is interesting.
(Policy I've read and seen is children go with the husband.)
Wait... Is H#2 sealed to a wife?

[JohnnyL]

"Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy."

Okay, so some do say polygamy is worse than communism, and all those other things, at destroying a family and keeping people from eternal life.

How about fornication? adultery? divorce? up and leaving?
Is polygamy worse than those?

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Couldn't be sealed to both maintains her sealing to husband #1, to whom husband #2 children are also sealed.

More? This is interesting.
(Policy I've read and seen is children go with the husband.)
Wait... Is H#2 sealed to a wife?

H#1 sealed to wife. H#2 can't be sealed to wife (polyandry) even though active lds. No kids with H#1. H#2 can't be sealed to his children with wife because H#1 still sealed to wife. H#2 kids sealed to H#1 and wife...

Luckily God is not the author of confusion...

[mtm411]

I am not sure why they wait until the woman has died to seal her husband and kids to her, but they will eventually. I see no reason why she couldn't have both. If Russel M Nelson can have both spouses, so will she.

Whether they choose to live that way or not is up to their own preference, but they'll all be sealed together. After their parents die, the kids can have everyone sealed together using a proxy for the parents. Let's face it, we are sealed as spouses, so our kids are going to be sealed to their spouses. The idea of being sealed in a family with one patriarch and matriarch makes no sense.

Women are no better at sharing their spouse than a man would be. If some women can live that way, some men might prefer to as well.

I think there will be some special circumstances worked out in the Celestial Kingdom. If anyone claims they know exactly how Celestial marriage is going to work out, that's their own opinion. I don't think People will be forced to stay sealed to someone they dislike and didn't treat them well, either.

Couldn't be sealed to both maintains her sealing to husband #1, to whom husband #2 children are also sealed.

More? This is interesting.
(Policy I've read and seen is children go with the husband.)
Wait... Is H#2 sealed to a wife?

H#1 sealed to wife. H#2 can't be sealed to wife (polyandry) even though active lds. No kids with H#1, H#2 can't be sealed to his children with wife because H#1 still sealed to wife.

[mtm411]

I think it's as bad as those, certainly. It teaches kids terrible lessons about fidelity in marriage and their own self worth. I can't imagine teaching a kid chastity and then having a bunch of spouses on the side. Not to mention what a girl would think of her own self worth. If you make your husband displeased, instead of working it out, he'll just go to the room down the hall. So a man never has to apologize or repent, just be served as a king.

Not to mention the young boys are throw aways. What happens to the lost boys today happened back then, too. On a small scale a society can maybe absorb a person having an extra spouse or two, but when people are routinely marrying dozens it just spirals into misery.

Only the elites ever got the extra wives. Compare it to today. Count to when you had a 6 figure income, and at that point you might get your first wife. How old were you when that happened, or did it ever? After another decade or if you became a high level church leader, you might get your second.

Then those young men who weren't elite constantly got lectures about being menaces to society if they were 25 and not married when every young woman they tried to court would get cut off from him. Their fathers wouldn't let them marry young men for love when they could use them to procure connections.

I am related to several polygamist early church leaders because they married each others daughters, nieces, grand daughters. The elite traded their young women for connections, both business and for church purposes. There is no way they were going to let her get married to the boy who had nothing to offer.

That is how polygamy plays out every time a society practices it. Every time. It's like communism in that naive people think there is some way they can work it out perfectly under the perfect circumstances. It has never worked and will never work.

"Satan couldn't have devised a better tactic to destroy the family unit and plan of salvation than something as awful as polygamy."

Okay, so some do say polygamy is worse than communism, and all those other things, at destroying a family and keeping people from eternal life.

How about fornication? adultery? divorce? up and leaving?
Is polygamy worse than those?

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

I am not sure why they wait until the woman has died to seal her husband and kids to her, but they will eventually. I see no reason why she couldn't have both. If Russel M Nelson can have both spouses, so will she.

I understand your point to be how things should be, not the current church position.

In the Church's defense, the whole things breaks down and becomes somewhat meaningless unless there is some order that prevents everyone being sealed to eachother. It's super easy if you aren't in that situation to shrug and say, "God will make it ok." A bit different if you are a TBM that can't be sealed to your TBM spouse or children. You are hanging on, I guess to see who (hopefully more than 1) gets assigned to you in the hereafter...

Maybe Jesus was right when the Sadducees asked him a super complicated question about who's wife it is if her husbands die and she is remarried multiple times...

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

[mtm411]

I totally agree. I feel really badly for her. I also think that people who think they know and tell her that she won't be with both her husbands in the hereafter and that's tough luck are as repugnant as the people who tell women they'd better be alright with polygamy because they'll live it in Heaven. No sad women's heaven, please.

I am not sure why they wait until the woman has died to seal her husband and kids to her, but they will eventually. I see no reason why she couldn't have both. If Russel M Nelson can have both spouses, so will she.

I understand your point to be how things should be, not the current church position.

In the Church's defense, the whole things breaks down and becomes somewhat meaningless unless there is some order that prevents everyone being sealed to eachother. It's super easy if you aren't in that situation to shrug and say, "God will make it ok." A bit different if you are a TBM that can't be sealed to your TBM spouse or children. You are hanging on, I guess to see who (hopefully more than 1) gets assigned to you in the hereafter...

Maybe Jesus was right when the Sadducees asked him a super complicated question about who's wife it is if her husbands die and she is remarried multiple times...

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."