I don't try to accept what hasn't been asked of me, life is easier that way. I have also used the claim that I will leap off that skyscrapper when I have to climb it... but I have to admit that I have never been asks to do something by the prophet that I couldn't accept. If the prophet called us (through proper channels) to live the law, I would find a way to do so without tearing myself to pieces over it.
Hubby has a different attitude... he insists that he will never be asked, I think he lives in a delusional state on that one!
I can barely handle one wife and kids!!!!! Seriously though, who would want to marry me anyway knowing they would be wife number two. Even when polygamy was practiced the majority of church members were not polygamous. Maybe the upcoming generation will have to deal with it but I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. So no struggle here since I don't have to live the law and even if the law was reinstated I would still have to go to all the trouble of finding wife #2 which takes time, money, energy, more time, which makes it pretty improbable. Do I struggle to accept the concept as doctrinal? Nope. That's what a personal testimony is for. That and so much time has passed it doesn't seem really that big an issue anymore for me.
I love how the quesiton I asked originally has transformed into "Could you live the law of Polygamy?" which is not what I asked. I think it's a mormon tendency to look at any commandment that someone else has lived and think, "That'll be me someday."
Personally, I don't think it is possible for any of us to fully comprehend the issue and so I don't let it trouble me much. I am also a descendant of the early saints that practiced it, so in that regard, I'm grateful for it, because I like my life... despite the many times I've made it miserable.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I don't fret over polygamy in the history of the church. It happened. It was inspired. The exact reasons it was done we may never know, although we know several reasons that sound good. It was necessary for a time. Then it wasn't. It may become necessary again in the future. If it does we will, as a church, almost certainly catch a lot of grief over it, whether or not it is legal. Even if polygamy is legalized, people will point the finger and say, "See, we knew you were just waiting your chance to start that corrupt practice again!" My personal opinion is that the church will not bring back polygamy even if it is legalized. At least, not immediately. There are several reasons for this. One I stated at the end of my last paragraph. The other is that if polygamy is brought back, it will most likely be accompanied by gay marriage, polyandry, polyamory, etc. In other words, a whole load of other perversions will be legalized at the same time. The church would want to distance itself from such a crowd.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Polygamy doesn't bother me in the least. I accept the former practice of it as doctrinal. I accept the ending of said practice as a revelation from God.
If asked to live it; I will. I do not yearn to be asked; but neither do I fear being asked.
Hoss Cartwright wrote:Do you think he'll (we'll) be asked?
No... I do not expect that we will be asked to live the law of polygamy now... Which is the reason it's not on my radar... I don't believe it will be practiced again at all in his or my lifetimes... Perhaps I misspoke a bit... I see polygamy as an earthly law... Plural marriage is another concept for me but for hubby they mean pretty much the same thing, because for him it means accepting that he could love someone else. He doesn't feel he could ever love anyone but me. I am grateful for his faithful devotion.
That said, I have SLE (Lupus). I have had severe organ involvement, for over 25 years. I have outlived several doctor's predictions. I have one kidney left that is operating at... shall we say... LESS than great levels? I am not a good transplant risk, but we will probably have to try it sooner or later anyway... The last exacerbation that I had brought me a whole bunch of new joys, that exhibit themselves as some mild heart and lung issues... I am a walking pharmacy these days...
I don't really "expect" to live until I am VERY very old, as my parents did (90/95)... I don't live as though I am sure I will die next week either... However I know that there are much worse things than death, and I am not afraid of the future. In short I live as faithfully as I can each day and I try to love as though this year is it for me, because it may be, but then it may be for anyone... not just those of us with a major disease.
SHOULD hubby outlive me, which seems very likely to ME... I hope that he will remarry, because he is too young (early 50s) to spend many many years alone... and he is a really wonderful man, with MUCH emotional understanding and love to give. I don't want HIS life to be lonely, and he would be... because we are best friends... If he remarries I hope that he will marry her in the temple, because that too brings great blessings and happiness to a couple during their earthly sojourn. IF the woman were also widowed that would possibly change the circumstances of our eternal family, but I would accept that the Lord would help us all to work that out, because I am sure that even then, there will be some loving hearts that need help.
Truth is... I accepted many years ago that my eternities may include other members within the bonds of my covenants that I do not know now... but then to me "family" is a very broad term, and love is not designed to be limited to this earthly understanding we have here.
Those here at Bountiful that know me better from Nauvoo, possibly understand that concept from my shared posts there... I am a strange duck... Cocobeem would tell you just to look at my avatar...
We love you Polly. If for some reason one day you suddenly stop posting, I hope you'll know that we all love your input.
When we pass into the other realm, we will see things different, I expect. I expect our feelings about how we can rely upon each other, and help each other through the tough times of mortality also gain a different perspective.
The cool thing I learned about polygamy a few years ago is that it provides a glimpse of possibilities that every person can and will be given a chance at an eternal family. It is a strange thing in this life, but in the next, I think our vision of eternity and what is holy and what is good, will be such that we can see past some of the prejudices and fears and truly learn to trust. I suppose this thing is a great mystery.
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I just had a thought. One of the problems polygamist families faced was that the husband had to be careful not to spend too much time or attention on any one wife, or the other wives would feel jealous. In the eternities, time isn't going to be a problem anymore.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
It's part of our doctrine that at present we are not required to live.
My sweetheart and I have discussed it and neither of us would have a problem with it.
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
rayb wrote:If for some reason one day you suddenly stop posting, I hope you'll know that we all love your input.
That was a VERY nice thing to say rayb... Hubby would let my friends know... so I doubt you would have to wonder... There are several Nauvoodles who are in his address book, just in case... and we have met some of those people... (Hubby was with me, when I connected with Téa, Bee and Euph in Gilbert last fall...)
I really hope there are some things that I gain a clue about when I "step into the next room" some day, but really polygamy is not one of those things that bugs me that I feel I need to be tutored on... that hasn't always been true, but it is now... As I mature in my testimony of other principles and strive to understand the ordinances and covenants I have participated in... that topic so often seems like a red herring... It gets so much air play inside and outside the church... in the meantime we don't spend time learning about how to understand other things... There are so many doctrines that I don't understand... areas of my life that I am so weak in... I don't feel I have energy or time for that one.
I'll tell you what exactly I struggle with. When Joseph Smith lived it... Okay, let's stop right there. I've heard the statement from several people that in effect, you won't HAVE to live it if you don't care to. I find that b.s. in the utmost. In fact, I find little evidence that anyone wanted to live it - at least when it was first introduced to them. There are exceptions- Dr. Bennett comes to mind. It was a test to see where one's loyalty lies, i.e., with the Lord or with earthly ties. Think Abraham sacrificing Isaac. Plus D&C 132:64-65 pretty much lays it out that you accept it or become the transgressor and be destroyed. So back to what bothers me. When a man is married he is still "on the market" so to speak. There is no denial in regard to other single women. He takes a fancy to one, they are absolutely fair game. And the idea that the first wife has say in it? Not really. She has the option of accepting it or being destroyed. From the Reed Smoot hearings-- "Question: Is it not true that if she refuses her consent her husband is exempt from the law which requires her consent? President Joseph F. Smith: Yes; he is exempt from the law which requires her consent. She is commanded to consent, but if she does not, then he is exempt from the requirement."
Also from Wilford Woodruff- "We have many bishops and elders who have but one wife. They are abundantly qualified to enter the higher law and take more, but their wives will not let them. Any man who permits a woman to lead him and bind him down is but little account in the church and Kingdom of God."
So, I'm "challenged" shall we say, when I try to reconcile cleaving to your wife and gaining new ones simultaneously. I suppse cleave does not mean what I think it means.
Now Joseph Smith's position (and Brigham Young's though to a lesser degree) was different in that no woman, regardless of her marital status, was beyond his attainment. More than once a husband "gave up" his wife to Joseph, hoping in an eternal reward for doing so. (I guess a different woman...?) Some husbands even stood proxy in sealings. I can't help but think the whole mindset of marriage had to be altered to accomodate this way of life.
Zina D. Jacobs Smith Young said, "A successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy."
I am "challenged" shall we say, by what the relationship between husband and wife is really supposed to be. Perhaps the wives are meant to be closer to each other and gain their emotional support in that way. Perhaps the husband is comfortable sharing his deepest thoughts and feelings and fears with a number of women. Perhaps he would be closer in that way to other brothers... I do not know.
Back to arbi's comment that the issue of spending too much time with one wife will no longer be a problem in the next life. It certainly was a problem in this life and it's also my opinion that a man can be a greater influence for good on his children when his time is not stretched so thin. But let's look at the time/no time factor like this- What's the big hurry to have all these children? If there's no time, couldn't one man and one woman reproduce just as "fast" as one man and several women? Remember, time does not exist.
One of the comments I find most fascinating in the New Testament is where John the Baptist tells the Pharisees that God can make children for Abraham out of these here stones. What exactly does that mean? Before we were here, we were spirits. Before we were spirits, we were intelligences. At one point, we were on an even ground with the Father. He, seeing that He had progressed beyond us, saw fit to set up laws by which we may advance like unto Him. Has there always been an excess of one gender?
Anyhoo, just some of my thoughts...
Feel free to jump in, Janey, if you're here!
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
I have always thought that in the early days of the church, polygamy could be a blessings to the wives involved. Women have always enjoyed relationships with other women. Having 'sister-wives' could fulfill this need in a society that could be lonely, with neighbors being distances away.
If we were called to live it today, I would have a problem with it. I tell my husband that since I would be the first wife and get a say in the next, the next will all be 35 years older. Which now would put them at least in their late 80's and 500 lbs.
In the eternities, I imagen there is enough time to go around for all.
For the record, comments like (I believe) Kevin's create a picture of a man with his tongue hanging out. It is one of the reasons some women have a problem with the idea.
The information given by Cocobeem seems to indicate my understanding that the first wife has a say is wrong. It would definately be a test for me and I am not sure at all I would pass the test. I hope I would be able to develope enough faith to pass. In fact, after Coco's comments, the whole concept seems totally alien. I always thought that each marriage had "romantic love", not apathy.
I don't recall your comment about the first wife. Please don't take this as an attack on you. In fact, I would go so far as to say the thought is "widespread" in the Church. There's many more quotes on the subject, but I will refrain. It does become "alien" as you say and many of the quotes I've read are, shall we say... strongly worded. sigh...
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
For the record, comments like (I believe) Kevin's create a picture of a man with his tongue hanging out. It is one of the reasons some women have a problem with the idea.
I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. I'm pretty sure he was joking. I can see how this would be a very sensative subject though for women. In addition to the whole dividing time and affections problems there is also the feeling of rejection a wife might have and also a feeling that she isn't good enough. Jealousy, loathing, anger, self doubt, and depression could easilly follow. For some women even thinking about a hypothetical situation where they were suddenly commanded to live the law causes anxiety and bitterness towards their husbands and the gospel in general. Frankly, this is why I don't participate in discussions with members in my ward on this subject nor do I discuss this sort of thing with my wife. I hope that none of my mirth has been construed as being insensitive to the female readers who might interpret it as somehow discounting their feelings and concerns. If so, I apologize. I'm am sure there are some men who look at polygamy as a great way to have a modern day harem. Most married men are rational though and see nothing but a load of headaches and problems if this law were suddenly thrust back upon us. Seriously ladies, are we ever right now? Just think how wrong we are when there are more than one wife. That's a lot of pressure for any man to live under.
BTW, folks, the discussion is fine so far. But make sure that you don't venture into questioning church practices. It's fine to say you don't understand it. It's fine to say that you have struggles with the concept. But it wouldn't be fine, for instance, to question whether it was ever an inspired practice. We accept that it was, even though we may seek greater understanding of the principles involved, the specific practices, and what we ourselves would do if the practice were ever reinstituted. No one has yet broken the rule or gotten close, but as moderators we prefer that things not get bad in the first place
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
"I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22
For some women even thinking about a hypothetical situation where they were suddenly commanded to live the law causes anxiety and bitterness towards their husbands and the gospel in general. Frankly, this is why I don't participate in discussions with members in my ward on this subject nor do I discuss this sort of thing with my wife. Well said, Jason. The only conversations I have ever had about it with my wife is the hypothetical what if. And it was something I polled her on when we were dating, as her parents were converts to the gospel. I have no grandiose idea that someday I'll be required to live it. All that I am concerned about in myself, and all I was concerned about in asking her what she thought about the topic was to see what her level of commitment to obeying The Lord was. Her answer was sufficient for me to know she was a noble woman I should latch onto, and in so doing I would end up a better, more righteous man in the long run.
To paraphrase her response so many years ago, "It would be hard I guess, but if it came from The Lord, I would sacrifice and obey."
For those of you brothers and sisters who really do struggle with the concept, try approaching it in a different viewpoint. We all would be horrified if The Lord asked us to sacrifice our child like Abraham was, would we not? Do you not think Abraham was, considering the history and "baggage" he had, coming from a place and people where child sacrifice to dumb idols was part of the contemporary religious belief? We most likely won't ever be asked to do that, but what The Lord asks of us as those who enter into and partake of the same covenants as Abraham is our willingness to sacrifice and be obedient to Him, even if we do not see the whole picture, even if it looks to go against basic common sense. I think theologically speaking, the concept of plural wives (from the perspective of both male and female) fits right in there with sacrifice. And we don't need to expend more energy than necessary fretting over it one way or the other, because we are not asked to actually practice it.
If you struggle with it, that is okay. If you don't, that is okay too. All that matters is where is our individual desire and willingness to trust and follow The Lord, and that is between each individual and The Lord alone.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
No one has yet broken the rule or gotten close, but as moderators we prefer that things not get bad in the first place
Ditto. For what it is worth folks, some of the comments seem to be taking on a certain tone that is, for me at least, reminiscent of what I disliked most about discussions at the place across the river (and which ultimately ended up precipitating my sudden departure when I tried to stand up against it). For our newer Nauvoodle participants who noticed my word of advise last week about certain attitudes being left at the door... this tone is part of what is meant.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Cat Herder wrote:some of the comments seem to be taking on a certain tone that is, for me at least, reminiscent of what I disliked most about discussions at the place across the river................. For our newer Nauvoodle participants who noticed my word of advise last week about certain attitudes being left at the door... this tone is part of what is meant.
For those of us that may be crossing this "tone" line... could you be a little more specific? Even if it is in a PM??? Tone is not something I can "see", so I have no idea what you are talking about exactly. So far as I have read there are no ideas that cross the line Arbi is speaking of, and he was quite specific... Perhaps if you could tell us what exactly is crossing that line for you? Unfortunately I am begining to get the feeling I need to take my "tone" somewhere else, because I can't put my finger on how to participate here.
I really understand that some attitudes and opinions are not welcome in some places. I not only recognize it, but I appreciate and respect it... However you are not giving "us" anything to base our approach on. So far your comments about how we should post are at best... vague.
Arbi is correct, nothing has crossed the line. You're fine, PollyAnna. So is everyone else. I have purposely been vague, because we (meaning moderators) aren't here to push our personal bias just because of holding moderator power. Otherwise, that would be, well, bad...
By tone, I'm generally referring to being mindful of stating things in such a manner that if so stated in normal conversation, it would easily evolve into a defensive or adversarial atmosphere to those that may not hold the same viewpoint... Particularly on topics where the genders usually approach the subject differently both in logic and emotion.
Does that help?
ETA: My only reason in bringing it up at all is that I don't want the feeling of a gender divide to take root in Bountiful. This is really all I should elaborate on, because otherwise I'm creating an unwritten rule based on my bias from the last parts of my experience at and with Nauvoo.So, guys and gals, feel free to discuss things, but be mindful of how others may perceive your passion on a topic.
-- Edited by Cat Herder at 14:57, 2007-05-02
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
BTW, I want to make clear that, as a board, we have nothing against Nauvoo, its moderation, its participants, or in any other way. Anything else is on an individual level. I do agree with Cat - we don't want a gender divide taking hold. But I think that, if we just post as if our words were going to be announced to our whole ward, we'll generally take the right tone.
-- Edited by arbilad at 15:44, 2007-05-02
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I am looking forward to it! Actually, I have never had a problem with it, neither has my wife. In fact, I think we both expect it to happen to us. I think my wife would actually like having someone else there. If it comes to us, that's what we will do. I think there will be polygamy, on earth and in the CK.
__________________
Lo, there I see my mother, my sisters, my brothers Lo, there I see the line of my people back to the beginning Lo, they call to me, they bid me take my place among them In the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live...forever
Polygamy is not the only Gospel principle that has the potential to divide men and women--and often results in very different perspectives... Frankly I'm glad we have polygamy (in our history), so that we don't get nearly as much nitpicking on those other things, like say, priesthood responsibility, or motherhood... In a way Polygamy sorta puts a protective bubble from our enemies about those other more precious things... because well... if a critic can't get past the polygamy thing, they won't bother with all the other peculiarities we get to experience in Zion.
--Ray
-- Edited by rayb at 16:48, 2007-05-02
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I am looking forward to it! Actually, I have never had a problem with it, neither has my wife. In fact, I think we both expect it to happen to us. I think my wife would actually like having someone else there. If it comes to us, that's what we will do. I think there will be polygamy, on earth and in the CK.
Would you care to expand on this, Val? Particularly, why are you looking forward to it? And what makes you think you would be asked to live this law, if it were someday restored again?
Would you care to expand on this, Val? Particularly, why are you looking forward to it? And what makes you think you would be asked to live this law, if it were someday restored again? As to looking forward to it, I was joking, should have put the winking smilie.
As to the other question, I decline to answer as it is personal.
__________________
Lo, there I see my mother, my sisters, my brothers Lo, there I see the line of my people back to the beginning Lo, they call to me, they bid me take my place among them In the halls of Valhalla, where the brave may live...forever
Some people think that once gay marriage is legal and accepted nation-wide (which I believe is just a matter of time), the issue of polygamous marriages will be right on its heels. I've even heard this stated as a reason the Church is so opposed to gay marriage.
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
I have a question and rather than start another polygamy thread, I'll just add it to this one.
Concerning the angel with a drawn sword... is there any other examples of this? Preferably in scripture? This "enforcement" of obedience? In my mind, it seems to go contrary to the agency factor that HF so strongly protects and goes more with the thinking of the adversary - the "forcing" part, that is. Can someone tell me another commandment perhaps, that was given with a strong warning (preferably death threat) that someone or some people MUST obey? Something specific...?
Note: I'm not going against doctrine, here. I want to learn more of this "angel with a drawn sword" part. When the angel appeared to Laman and Lemuel to make them stop beating Nephi... did he have a weapon? Did the angels in Revelation have swords...? I've always just glossed over this phrase before without giving it much thought...
__________________
Life is tough but it's tougher if you're stupid. -John Wayne
The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil came with a promise of death if they ate from it. And, in conjunction with that Cherubim and the flaming sword to protect the way of the Tree of Life (Genesis 3, Moses 4).
As to the angel with a drawn sword (if I am remembering the story you are referring to), and mind you this probably just anecdotal and my opinion, I think with reference to the context, it was more or less that Joseph had received the knowledge about the law quite a while earlier -- see the header to D&C 132 -- but had not moved on it as The Lord expected him to, and as the holder of the priesthood keys he would be required to obey the law if taken in context with Section 132. Afterall, it was through Joseph that all the keys were restored. If he did not obey, he would be removed from his place, and I think this is what the Lord was warning him by sending the angel with the drawn sword. It was not so much being forced, but a clear reminder that choosing to exercise agency contrary to direct commandments from The Savior is not without consequence if you are His mouthpiece.
-- Edited by Cat Herder at 15:05, 2007-05-03
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
So far as I have read there are no ideas that cross the line Arbi is speaking of, and he was quite specific... Perhaps if you could tell us what exactly is crossing that line for you? Unfortunately I am begining to get the feeling I need to take my "tone" somewhere else, because I can't put my finger on how to participate here.
