Per LDSA noticing that, “at other Mormon blogs, and I see a tiny blog post with very little to no new information and two hundred comments will follow,” I’ve decided to publish this post at under 1,000 words.
BTW — I failed by about 200 words — maybe it will still get comments though.
What is Marriage:
A man and a woman vowing to come together as husband and wife, cohabitate, make love, and remain together permanently.
In a gospel-centered marriage, this man and woman will also have covenanted with Christ — binding them both to Him as individuals, as well as to each other.
Once formed, a marriage family should grOW — both horizontally [adding additional spouses] and vertically [having children].
In neither dynamic should a family limit itself — because that is an attempt to place bounds on the human ability to love, which since “God is love” — we are meant to develop and foster that ability [not box it up].
As such — I share the official LDS and predominate Christian creed that “marriage is the union of one man and one woman” — it’s just that I’ve never seen satisfactory reason to forbid people to only one such marriage union during their life [mono+gamy].
Plural Marriages:
All consensual marriage vows between a man and a woman are valid in the eyes of God — at least for a time.
All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations […] are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts […] have an end when men are dead.
All human vows, covenants, obligations, oaths, ordinances, etc. come to an end when the parties have died — but while living — the Lord expects us to honor our word and faithfully keep our agreements.
God has provided the sealing power to priesthood holders on the earth — so that we may obtain permanency in our freely-entered into covenants — because God restores good for good, and evil for evil at the resurrection:
ye can do good and […] have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you.
The sealing power allows for marriage to be restored for marriage. It allows for men and women to be rewarded for their righteous desires in marrying — by bringing that connection back for an endless duration.
It’s a stumbling block to say certain marriages are acceptable while others are more or less acceptable — and others are completely unacceptable. In the eyes of God, all marriage is honorable:
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled
and it is a deception of the devil to label this-or-that form of marriage as dishonorable or unjustified:
Whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man.
Charity in Plural Marriages:
A gospel-based, egalitarian, multihusband-multiwife tribe does not force anyone to be married to two or more people. It only allows for the full expression of charity to exist.
Charity is a gift from God — so entering a GEMTAM tribe cannot be evidence that a person has charity, or that a person will get charity. What the tribal marriage model does is facilitate the excercise of charity — since it allows a person to share all things and be bound with others in all things:
That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;
Having a family orgainzed as a GEMTAM will only allow a person to learn whether they have charity — or not.
If you profess to have charity but refuse to share talents, resources, time, spouses, etc. — then the GEMTAM has discerned your lack of charity. On the other hand, if your family is organized as a GEMTAM because you feel charitable — now instead of just having the desire to share all that you have with everyone else, you are free to act on and express it.
So — does tribal plural marriage create or cause charity? No. It allows for the full and free expression of charity to go forth — something that monogamy hinders.
When we have men and women marrying as many spouses as their hearts desire — we don’t end up with male dominance and abuse. We end up with an egalitarian tribe — which was exactly D&C 132’s goal — to knit the Gentile church of Christ together as a tribal family.
Establishing a Tribe:
A friend wrote the following to me:
Attachment to more than one person is not only natural, it’s healthy.
Our society has really reduced it’s joy because of the one-on-one romantic love relationships that have forced us into these big homes in pairs. Feeds anxieties, too. If you lose that one person, you lose everything.
[A single spouse] can’t fulfill all [of a person’s] needs for connection — and it’s not a fair thing to expect. We have to change it.
As my wife and I were watching Sister Wives on TLC last week, I remarked to her that the problem I see with what they do is that it appears that they are living in polygamy for the sake of plural marriage. It’s a part of their theology — to need to be polygynous.
I’m not interested in polygamy for the sake of having plural marriages — I’m interested in building tribes. Without the tribal/family aspect, plural marriages hold no interest for me whatsoever.
I don’t want to live in a monoculture, monotonous nuclear family. Humans are symphonic beings — we have nuances of expression and a capacity to love every one of our fellow brothers and sisters.
And that’s what I want to cultivate with a gospel-based, egalitarian, multihusband-multiwife tribe — not rows-and-rows of a monoculture wasteland, but a diverse garden where people can uncover their own unique Self — without pressure on a person to be the one, true source of everything for their spouse [or parents for their kids]. Giving every member of the tribe access to as many models of behavior, personality, and spiritual gifts as possible — instead of isolating people with the minimum number of humans possible.
Culture has become our extended family — because we’ve discarded the tribe. In the GEMTAM, every mother and father have a covenant interest in caring for every son and daughter in the tribe.
But the rejection of one-on-one romantic love relationships can’t devolve into swinging or “open-relationships” either. I’ve always believed in permanent unions — i.e. marriages.
If I’m going to marry a second wife, then I want her to be with me always [just like my first wife]. Same for her — if my wife wants to marry a second husband, then I want us all together so that the relationship can mature and grow.
It is the establishment of righteous, gospel-based tribes that I desire [both for myself and everyone else]. What I’ve found [as we’ve worked on the GEMTAM book] is that the scriptural ideal for a gospel-based tribe of righteouness is egalitarian, multihusband-multiwife tribal anarchy.
It is this form of a tribe that satisfies every aspect of the gospel of Jesus Christ — and it can be easily and quickly established now, even if the members are currently living within a fully-functioning State government.
“It is our purpose to explain the principles behind the ideal gospel tribe, as found described in the scriptures, and to demonstrate and encourage each reader to form righteous tribal societies now, before the coming collapse of nations, so that when the governments are destroyed, there will be no need to join the wicked tribes that will be forming in every quarter.
The tribes of righteousness, already pre-planned and pre-established, will become bulwarks, within which the saints of God can safely live the gospel and from which can be launched missionary efforts to preach the gospel to the tribes of the earth.”
[From here]
Next Article by Justin: The Doctrine of Identity
Previous Article by Justin: Split-brain Model of the Gospel: The Fall of Man
58 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
I think the lack of comments is that you have created what many see as a “good ol boys” club on this blog that will argue with any point they don’t believe until the cows come home, making this blog much less enjoyable of an electronic destination than it has been in the past.
Just my two cents though… go ahead, start the argument telling me why I am wrong=)
TuNeCedeMalis — I’ve encountered this is “real” life too, and haven’t reached a satisfactory answer on what to do — so instead of arguing, why don’t you help me out.
So — of course I think that my positions are the best ones — that’s why I hold them as my position. If I thought something was better, then that would be my position.
Disagreeing with a position that’s different than mine doesn’t mean that I disrespect the person or the view — but that I want to see if it’s better than the one I have. And the only way I can find that out is to challenge it — see if it holds up.
I can respect that another person sees something differently than I do — while still challenging what they wrote. Why is it considered disrespectful to a person to disagree with something they have said?
Oh goody, some feedback!
So, TuNeCedeMalis, do you see this blog as argumentative? And, in comparison to other blogs, do you see this blog as more argumentative than other blogs? And is that what is un-attractive?
Or, is it that the various contributors of this blog are generally supportive of what the other contributors of this blog are writing?
Of, is it that the various comments that come from visitors to this blog are generally supportive of what is written by the blog contributors?
In other words, I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this blog having been converted into a “good ol’ boys” club. Do you mean the blog contributors act as such a club against visitor comments that disagree with what they have written, or that there are regular site visitors that act as such a club, defending what the post author(s) has written against any contradicting comments from visitors?
Also, what would you recommend? For example, if Justin writes a post that I am in agreement with, or dyc4557, or Anthony Larson, etc., and I want to throw in my two cents, either adding to what he has said or just saying that I agree with this for such-and-such a reason, should I just keep my mouth shut? Or, if a visitor comes in and shoots down what one of these guys have written, and I feel like responding to the comment because I agree with the OP and think maybe I can explain or expound its meaning somewhat to help the visitor understand the point, should I not respond? Should I instead let the OP’s author do the responding and just stick to my own posts?
In other words, is it the tendency of the contributors to participate in the posts of the other contributors and to support writings they agree with against comments that attack those writings, is this what causes the feeling of a good ol’ boys club? If so, again, what do you recommend?
This site is based upon anarchy, so any contributor can say whatever he wants to say, in the comments of any other contributor’s posts. There are no rules to dissuade anyone from doing so. Admittedly, there is a tendency towards agreement on certain issues among some contributors. For example, Justin, dyc4557 and myself seem to agree on a great many theological issues. Anthony Larson, Justin and myself also agree on plasma theology, but there is no consensus in our interpretations of plasma theology. Anthony has argued against other contributors before. If you’ve been around long enough to read many of the posts and comments, you probably know that I have disagreed with several of the contributors on various issues. For example, OWIW and I have had many disagreements. OWIW and Spektator have had disagreements. illmatic253 (Chris) has had disagreements with the other contributors. These latter contributors have ceased to post on this blog (they have their own personal blogs), but they still have active accounts here and can post when they want.
So, I think perhaps you are just looking at the three bloggers that still routinely put out posts: me, Justin and dyc4557. Between the three of us, there IS, indeed, much agreement. But again, what do you suggest? Should I let dyd4557 and Justin go? Should I put up a rule that no contributor can comment on another contributor’s post? What do you suggest to remove the good ol’ boys club feeling while still allowing anarchy to find its happy and natural medum?
Nice one, Justin~
I just wanted to add–from our discussion earlier–what prompted me to say that about emphasis on romantic love isolates us, and how that’s not a good thing…
……My husband and I had just been listening to a story on NPR this morning…
It was actually about meals-on-wheels, and how some of the elderly shut-ins only see the person bringing them their meal each day. Nathan looked across the breakfast table at me and said, “Can you imagine, the only person you see each day is the meals on wheels person? That would be awful!” But in the story the meals on wheels woman was talking like that happened a lot.
We’ve separated ourselves within our little families, each having our properties and possessions (ideas we value as a culture) so much that we miss out on the richness of oneness with others. Not to mention, safety in numbers.
My husband was just reading to me a study about women who were set in a chair with electric shocking mechanisms at their feet and when told they could go off at any time all the anxiety centers in her brain lit up. But when she able to hold the hand of a trusted partner, the centers didn’t light up so much. And when the shocks were administered, the women holding hands of loved ones didn’t feel as much pain as those sitting alone.
I think, for older people. what happens is, you’re already isolated, and then a partner dies, then you get sick…and you’re basically screwed; left alone with just the television, the meals on wheels guy and a daughter three states away . . . . .
People can’t really want it this way ….
Justin,
In the first paragraph, permanently is missing an “n”.
Just yesterday I was talking to my daughter about the show Sister Wives (which she and my wife like to watch) and I remarked about how they do a one husband-one wife marriage bed rotation because they consider all wives in the same bed as “weird sex,” but that such a view comes from their religious views, above and beyond what the word of God says, and not from what their bodies are telling them. They suppress the need and desire to sleep with their husband, remaining alone for three days and waiting their turn, not because the word of God demands it, but because they have added to it, like the Pharisees. If you were to take their extra-scriptural religious views out of the picture, they would probably not be so repulsed by the idea of everyone sleeping in the same bed.
So, when you wrote:
it reminded me of this conversation I had with my daughter.
LDSA — maybe find more contributors to replace the ones that have moved on? The diversity might help, though I find plenty interesting among the current three active contributers, especially the split-brain model such as the previous post. Oftentimes I simply don’t have much to add to what was written…
LDSA — thanks for pointing out the typo, I put this post together real quick and on Internet Explorer [which didn’t have “spell check” feature like Firefox does] — so I missed that.
Joana — it’s stories like that that got me pondering the idea of multi-spouse families long before I started writing about it here. I remember one on the Science Channel about brain injuries. A man had his frontal lobe damaged in a car-wreck — and became incapable of feeling/expressing love towards his wife and children. His wife was interviewed and was talking about how sad it was and how he was like a different person after the accident, etc.
My first thought was, “that’s so sad — she needs a husband who can love her” — but then I thought, “a brain injury is not a justified cause for divorce, she needs to stay with her husband” — and then I thought, well who’s to say that she can’t marry a second man — so as to fulfill her obligation to stay with her first husband, but still have the love and companionship she deserves.
That’s about when my mind really started working on the idea of polygamy and having lots of love and connections at home — instead of being bound by some dated theory of monogamous, one-true love.
I just can’t help making some comments here in support of plural marriage. I was recently taken to task for makeing the same comments that I will now make by OWIW, he did not follow up so I guess I was quite convinceing.
Most LDS scholars understand that the divison between Brigham Young and his followers and Sidney Rigdon and his followers was over plural marriage and of course every one has heard the story of how the mantle of Joseph fell upon Brigham Young. those that followed Brigham probably didn’t understand all the details and reasons for the split. OWIW has stated that Joseph was in the process of repenting of plural marriage at the time he was murdered.
Not every one accepts the “White Horse Prophecy” and yet it is without a doubt one of the greatest futuristic prophecies that the prophet Joseph ever gave. I am a great supporter of the prophet Joseph Smtih, and defend him ever chance I get.
An exerpt ffrom the “White Horse Prophecy”
Continuing, he (Joseph) said, You will go to the Rocky mountains and you will see a great and mighty people established,………………. I will point out here that this was fulfilled in complete measure and those that followed Sidney Rigdon are hardly a footnote in comparison. When the prophet said “you will see” I asked him were will you be at the time. He answered ” I shall never go there”. Your enemies will continue to follow you with persecutions. and they will make obnoxious laws against you in congress to destroy the White Horse of peace and safety………………………………………… You must continue to petition congress all the time, but they will treat you like strangers and aliens, and they will not give you your rights………..
You will see the constitution of the united States almost destroyed; it will hang by a thread, and that thread as fine as the finest silk fiber.
All of this portion of the prophecy has been fulfilled, the rights the Prophet alluded to obviously were the rights to practice plural marriage. The unconstitutional laws passed “Edmunds Law” “Edmunds Tucker law”” HR bill 391″ were all against polygamy! Does this sound like Joseph Smith was repenting of polygamy? No in fact I would say he was underscoreing it with this prophecy and this is exactly the reason the modern LDS church refuses to accept the “WHITE HORSE PROPHECY” never mind the fact that it is in the process of being completely fulfilled to this day and beyond.
I don’t look at this blog as ‘a good ol’ boys club,’ having experienced enough of those which are nasty and closed (in the physical world. Why anyone would bother visiting anywhere on the internet that they thought was closed is a mystery to me – life is too short.)
I believe that many of the blogs that get a lot of comments are those that attract readers trying to foment discord or argument for argument’s sake – naturally those type of readers would stay away from here because of the research and well developed positions and thought. There’s just not a lot of room for frivolous debate.
Have you actually experienced a decline in readership and hits? I am with Jeremiah, except that I don’t think that I’ve ever had anything additional to offer in the comments. The contributors LDSA has selected are very thorough in their posts, have obviously given much thought to their subjects, and devoted many hours to each post they put out there. I would not venture to put out a comment unless I felt that I have been as thoughtful as they had been – even when I disagree.
For example – I can’t wrap my head (or heart) around multi-spouse relationships – I think the proposition is a bad idea. Some here would probably say it’s more than a proposition, so just accept it. I can’t ‘justify’ my non-acceptance. So I don’t comment. This doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate the positions expressed – I have the utmost respect for them. And it all helps to crystallize my thinking.
In fact, Justin’s last comment with the ‘brain injury’ situation brought a few things home: multiple husbands could solve the situation: physically, emotionally, and spiritually. A truly charitable (as referenced in the original post) tribal situation without multiple spouses could ‘solve’ the situation except for the sexual/reproductive aspect. My argument would be that the risk of negative results from non-charitable individuals co-opting a GEMTAM justify society in asking for the wife to sacrifice that aspect of her life. Society asks this of folks all the time in many different situations – but that argument, of course, just highlights the differences between the more prevalent societies of today and a GEMTAM.
The perceived necessity of requesting such a poignant sacrifice is sad, especially when such a sacrifice is required only (partly?) to protect the weaker among us. Such weakness, I believe, is partly a product of living a mortal life and not a spiritual one (until the last post, I probably would have said “having a mortal body” – but as was nicely pointed out, we didn’t become carnal just because of that….) and I guess I’ve never met folks I could trust to live a pure charitable relationship (including myself – but I have issues).
So after a lot of rambling, my take is that in the next ‘sphere’ things will be so different (and so much better) that attempting to live an idealized system that we believe is as close to that ‘sphere’s’ system as possible, while still having to deal with the limitations of a mortal life, our own and those around us, is not worth the potential hurt or harm that would result to individuals. (I am not saying it is not worth the effort. In my view, any striving to do what we feel is more ideal is worth while.) This is very cynical of me, I know.
Ramblings, I know, but I truly do appreciate the post, and wanted to let all of the contributors know that I don’t believe the blog is closed or even unfriendly, and I appreciate your willingness to share. I don’t consider myself an original thinker, but enjoy putting the puzzle together.
The Glider:
You must know that I take it as the utmost compliment to hear that someone who disagrees with me can still enjoy reading what I wrote. I can enjoy being disagreed with — knowing you at least can see the merit in the opinion expressed.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on polygamy too. That’s why I don’t like the FLDS model of commanding polygyny. I don’t see any scriptural command to be polygamous, nor do I see one to refrain from polygamy. I think people should be just as free to be monogamous [for reasons like you described] — as they should be to be polygamous.
You wrote:
I agree that this is most of why comments are scarce. Speaking for myself — I know that I don’t publish a post until I’ve thought through the matter, talked about the idea elsewhere, and researched it through the scriptures, etc.
So, when I write the post — the tone is pretty matter-of-fact, there-you-go, the-matter-is-settled — because [in my mind at least], it is. If I had an idea I was unsure of — I’d leave it as a comment to see what someone else here thought.
So I do think that the tone of finality in most of the posts here don’t leave people [whether they agree or not] to add much to the discussion.
This whole deal kinda came up at Rock’s blog too — in the many comments on the subject of war in the Book of Mormon — but I’ve noticed it with myself personally and with this blog: one group can say I’m close-minded, disrespectful, and argumentative — while another group of people can say I’m open-minded [if not too open-minded], respectful of all different kinds of opinions [if not too accepting of any other opinion], and inquisitive towards the views of others.
I’ve never figured out what the difference can be. Anytime I ask a disagreer — it’s perceived as me being even more argumentative for asking.
So — thanks for your input Jeremiah and Glider — and I look forward to hearing back from TuNeCedeMalis on the questions LDSA and myself asked.
Oh yeah — also,
Hits per day, per week, and per month, etc. have stayed pretty constant as far as I’m aware.
I have never heard answered satisfactorily the biblical fact that men marry, and women give themselves in marriage. In other words, women don’t marry. So the scripture that states, “Whoso forbideth to marry…” does not apply to husbands forbidding their wives to marry another man, but to wives who forbid their husbands to marry another woman.
What think ye?
hell-raising Love Monster — I remember you bringing that question up in the past — have you read through the Multihusband-Multiwife section of the GEMTAM book?
There is a specific chapter addressing the polyandry question.
To quote a bit of that chapter here:
I also think that this chapter [on the Law of Sarah] applies to your question as well — to quote some:
After reading “Gliders” post or rather while I was in the act of reading I found myself very moved with compassion, his honesty simply permeated his writing. It made me do some serious reflection and I realized my own struggles in accepting this type of marriage. I have tried very hard to accept it and have had to do it on faith and I have never even lived it! In fact I realized that I had done every thing possible to find a reason to condemn it, Those that have read my posts in the past will probably have a hard time believeing that but it is true.
I donot understand why I have had such a difficult time in accepting this “true doctrine” but I am no closer to accepting it now than I was thirty years ago, I had to admit that to myself.
I like Glider hope there is major differance in the next life when it comes to this principle. I had a remarkable experience, a vision if you will that showed me there would be and I am satisfied to wait.
I am convienced it is a true doctrine, reason and the spirit tell me so and I supportr all who enbrace it.
Also — Joana — you wrote:
It made me think of something I had commented on your post at Elephant Journal [I think I’ve already copied and pasted it here before — on the Persona post]:
And this gets me back to what I’ve been going back-and-forth in my mind about on the subject of my Facebook page — which you’ve been nice enough to read through and talk [walk, on the Moon] with me about.
Modern societies leave many feeling alone and detached from a tribal sense of community. And I think something like social-media comes in and says it can fix it. But it can’t provide fulfilling community and life any more than reading the scriptures can cause someone to be saved.
The myths aren’t literal until a human being takes the word and makes it flesh. We all need to be connected — but not with machines, wires, and images — with flesh. Not seeing through a computer-screen, darkly — but face-to-face. Not knowing the Persona, in part — but knowing the person fully. [1 Corinthians 13:12]
The online-stuff is easy. And for our modern society — “ease” is the holiest virtue [a convenient, disposable, pre-packaged, microwavable Life] — but isn’t “easy” the opposite of “virtue”? Aren’t things virtuous because of the effort one must put in?
Bringing images into physical reality [taking it all the way down the Tree of Life, as the yownah — the dove] is what it means to be human — it’s our calling. To bring to life the images that are true, and reject those that deceive us into thinking that they are real.
Glider also said:
That’s right — it’s all like mental masturbation to me.
Arguing for the sake of arguing — polygamy for the sake of plural marriages — I feel like I want it all to be unto some fruitful end.
Just a little personal experience. I baptized beautiful 37 year old woman about 4 months ago. She is single with one daughter and is probly one of the most caring people iv ever met. Her biggest fear is never being married and that seems to be coming true. And now being a member of the church she feels obligated to marry within the church. Let me just say where she lives she has virtually no options. I would marry her in a heartbeat, but the problem is she is 37 and im 20 and my culture only allows me to marry one woman at a time. There are many girls over here who are my age and are dying for some one to take them to the temple but the ratio of girls in the church to guys over here is such a huge gap on the girls side that that dreamm will only come true for a select few. The rest will be left to think that they are bad and there marrige is not good enough becaus they were not able to marry within the church. And others wont even get married because of the lack of reliable men outside the church. And once again because of my culture im only allowed to show love to one girl selfishly leaving out the rest. Its not only bad for the girls but for me as well i mean come on if 2 girls love me and i love them both why do i have to chose one and hurt the other one. why cant i just chose both and love both.
Alright, so this is a great topic.
I just want to get out of the way what bugs me about this blog and a few others, mainly this: how do you guys post so much stuff so quickly?
1) I know it’s multiple authors, but still…nothing bad, I just don’t get it. I feel like I’m miles behind and I try and have discussions and debates and searching every day, if not with others, with myself. Yet there is so much that I haven’t thought about or ever discussed. I just think it’s impressive/wtf that so much is put on here.
2) I don’t have enough time to read all of the stuff that I want to. I wish that everyone lived closer together so we could meet up at a Denny’s once a week then discuss stuff until we realize we’ve been there too long.
As far as the “good ol’ boys club.” I get how someone could get that impression. But to me it doesn’t seem that way when I’ve read enough of the blog. I think a lot is like Socrates in Plato’s “Republic.” The discussion is done in order to more fully understand a subject.
Like Justin: “Disagreeing with a position that’s different than mine doesn’t mean that I disrespect the person or the view — but that I want to see if it’s better than the one I have. And the only way I can find that out is to challenge it — see if it holds up.” I do this a lot even with someone who agrees with me. I take the opposite position or a different one and try and find the holes and problems with it. I push sometimes, but I’m just trying to test the idea or principle. I feel that in so doing, I can truly understand it. I feel that is what happens here.
Like Glider, there are things I disagree with. Growing spouses horizontally is one. I do think there is a lot of good points on what kind of relationships it would foster. I am learning more about it. I don’t necessarily have any strong arguments against it. I’m just trying to feel it out and understand where my feelings against it are coming from. Where do my beliefs come from on the subject? For me, I’ve felt that ideal relationships would be friends and to a different degree siblings. Instead of focusing on “family,” how about a relationship like the one the Savior mentions in calling us friends. I’m still trying to work it all out. So like Glider, I don’t comment on that subject yet. That’s probably where my problem with the blog is.
There is so much good stuff, I get a little overwhelmed. If I didn’t have to sleep…problem solved.
I too have felt this has turned into a good-ole-boys club. I remember the articles in the past being about a variety of different topics and very scriptural based. My husband and I used them as the basis for many great discussions. Since then, it seems like this blog has become a propaganda machine promoting polygamy (and polygyny and polyandry and every other form of multi-husband, multi-wife type of relationship.) There is the odd occasion where another topic is written on but they are few and far between. I have spent many hours studying these topics and come to some firm conclusions but have no desire to share anything here, as I have seen others who try to offer varying opinions but end up talking in circles. I do not feel the need to convince anyone of anything, if I felt people here were interested in my opinion, I might be more inclined to share, but it seems your minds are already made up.
I recently received an email from another who shares my feelings, I quote it here;
“Yes, I did enjoy the posts on LDS Anarchy, someone needs to try and straighten them out. Like I said, I used to frequent that blog and enjoyed discussing the posts. The Anarchist always posted thoughtful and interesting posts, few of which had anything to do with polygamy. He did promote polygamy as inspired but that was only a small part of what he discussed. I posted a couple times trying to refute it and he was amiable. Shortly after Justin and dyc4557 became authors, the tone of the blog shifted and now it seems geared to insanely justify polygamy.”
So, LDSA — since TuNeCedeMalis hasn’t responded to you yet — it seems to me that Losing Faith’s e-mail friend would answer your question:
in the affirmative.
LDSA — what do you think. Did dyc and myself alter you for the worst? Do you feel like we affected your tone?
I made a quick table of the categories for the last fifteen posts to assess if there is a quantitative focus on polygamy at the expense of other topics. The most popular categories are tribalism (7/15); free agency (6/15); and Jesus Christ, gifts of the Spirit, polygamy, and prophecy (5/15). (Surprisingly, anarchy and anarchism together account for only 4/15 posts.) (If you want to see the table, I can send it to LDSA or something.) So you’ll have to decide for yourself, or go back and calculate the early ratio, to see if polygamy is really overemphasized disproportionately. At least someone is willing to talk about it rather than sweeping it under the rug.
Personally, I ask myself two questions as I evaluate which blogs and books I read: does it testify of Christ, and/or does it expand my mind and horizons? This blog does, to me, and it fills a niche in my intellectual engagement with the gospel and the redemption of Zion that, outside of the narrow circles of Weeping for Zion, Pure Mormonism, zo-ma-rah, Denver Snuffer, etc., is difficult for me to find. Hell, I’ll be honest: it’s stuff like this that is keeping me active in the Church rather than chucking it for an attempt at living the gospel alone with no one else. The tribal worship service is one of the better ideas I’ve seen for how to really live the primitive gospel (and I have made my own wine of the grape of the vine!).
As far as polyandry, etc., goes, what do I know? Joseph Smith practiced it. That’s about it, and I don’t really understand that. The scriptural case is slight, but not nonexistent. Not that I’m just “putting it on the shelf”: I’m not going to dismiss it or accept it until I’ve seen LDSA’s and Justin’s strongest case for it (in the GEMTAM book, presumably), and until I’ve made it a matter of sincere prayer. Even at that, I’ll probably never live it due to the basically monogamous nature of contemporary Babylon. But I am prepared to engage with it theologically as more than a historical aberration, but perhaps an actual likelihood, at least in the celestial kingdom.
It’s interesting to see that “tribalism” topped as most popular — because I would imagine that someone like “Losing Faith in LDSA” up there would just say — “Yeah, but to this ‘good ole boys club’, tribalism is just code for their polygamy justifications, etc.”
Meaning — I would bet that on any post that talks about the tribal nature of the family and the gospel — LDSA, dyc, or myself will have mentioned plural husbands and plural wives somewhere.
But what I see is the distinction between “LDS polygamy” as a matter of intellectual curiosity — and plural marriages as a way to grow one’s family to the end of establishing it as a righteous, gospel-based, multihusband-multiwife tribe — which is what the latter part of this OP was saying:
Losing Faith might have observed that dyc and myself beginning to post here shifted the whole dynamic into the wacky, plural marriage realm — but my wife would tell you that the biggest change for us come about after we read the Tribal Worship Services post [published when it was just LDSA writing].
It was after I read that — that the whole tribal dynamic started to work itself around in my right-brain — and it was only later [after reading Sex at Dawn] that I started to see how D&C132 and plural marriages work into the whole picture.
Personally, I have been focussing my “tribal studies”, as it were, more on the United Order than on plural marriage, since the opposition from Babylon (the corporations, the tax collectors, the government that only sees you as a consumer, not even a citizen) is likely to be far greater for living a materially consecrated life, in my judgment. (Although both aspects are ultimately necessary, and that’s the appeal of the tribal way of framing the question.) The corporate Church is liable to vigorously oppose serious attempts to live either portion of the celestial law, in any case. But the prospect of building a family, a tribe, a little pocket where you can cultivate Zion in the pure air without the stink of cities and mediocrity hanging on you… that is what drives me forward.
Which is right — I think. Again, I don’t care about polygamy for the sake of having plural marriages — but for the family aspect.
And what is a better representation of the United Order — where we have a covenant-based structure in which I may bind myself as joint-stewards with others to share our property in common according to the principle of charity — than a family?
Which is why, for me, I’ll always come back to kinship ties — because that’s where we already live in United Orders. I have a covenant obligation to devote every one of my resources to my wife and our children. If I marry a second wife — then I have a covenant obligation to devote every one of my resources to both wives and all of our children. If either of my two wives marry a second husband — then we have created a joint-stewarship [a United Order], where the concerns of my stewardship and the concerns of his stewardship are one-and-the-same: namely, our common wife and her children.
So I think that cooperative communities not based on covenant-connections between members will always just have joy while the sun is shining. The problem that I see with any community of “like-minded” that are just bound by shared beliefs [but not kinship] — is that it doesn’t form those covenant ties between members.
When things are going well — I’m happy to share with you and yours — but when famine breaks-out or a mob breaks-in — you can bet that I’ll be jumping over you and yours to get to and protect me and mine.
Now — imagine a scenario of famine or outsider attack affected our community and you and yours are me and mine. In such a United Order — I’m not taking food out of my kids’ mouths to share with your kids, because I would have just as much covenant obligation to your kids as I do to my own.
Glider and Rob:
I’d be interested in hearing your opinions on being against
Especially in light of what got discussed at the GEMTAM Facebook page — that I put into this post:
Would the two of you [or anyone else] — be interested in a GEMTAM tribe that chooses to remain as a monogamous nuclear family? In other words, does it just come down to plural spouses turning you off?
A common theme I noticed on the Facebook page was the people critical of the GEMTAM usually all felt something along the lines of:
“Well, not everyone wants to/should to/ought to have plural marriages“.
Essentially — focusing on the “M” [or multihusband-multiwife] — while ignoring the “A” [that’s it’s anarchy].
I think D&C 132 mentions vows of exclusivity because there are very real emotional reasons certain people need exclusivity in a marriage relationship.
I think the “A” is about getting away from the idea that some solution or some suggestion need be scalable to be right. I’ve always been attracted to anarchy because it’s about local solutions to local problems.
I came accross similar friction from people when I’ve written about how I wear my garments — or talked to people about how we homeschool — or eat a paleo/ancestrial diet — it seems that people take a suggestion that things can be different as a command that those things must be different.
I’ve never said that monogamy is bad and only polygamy is good [or buying LDS-approved underwear garments vs. making one’s own — etc.]. But that the choice should be there between both.
I see the GEMTAM saying “Forbid no marriages” — whether they are monogamous marriages or polygamous marriages — instead of the current state of things where polygamous ones are forbidden. Just like I don’t want to do away with Distribution Services-produced under-garments — or make public schools and factory-produced foods illegal. I want both to be included and let people choose — instead of mandating one or the other.
I need to dedicate more time to multi-spouse doctrines. I’m still not too familiar with what the scriptures and teachings are on it. Then once I’ve cleared up my confusion I can think and pray about it correctly.
But as of right now, the biggest issue I see with GEMTAM is in creating Zion, there is always the danger of someone who gets involved that is an adulterer or a pedophile. That would do so much damage to relationships and personal lives. Other than the normal damage it does, it gets amplified because of all the connected people.Then everyone freaks out and so much gets destroyed. The gov’t gets involved and starts taking kids away like the Warren Jeffs case.
Have any of you thought of things going wrong and how to deal with those situations? I’ve been trying to think about it for many scenarios. I really want to see how Amish and Mennonite societies deal with their problems and if it is effective. Cause whatever happened in Joseph Smith’s time didn’t work. This isn’t stopping me from accepting it, but it is something that I would like to discuss.
Also, I think that many people who would want to be involved are those who want multi-spouses for sexual gratification or just for the sake of polygamy. Your reasoning for having such growing your families is good and I think when others see that they’ll be more open as opposed to other reasons that people do it. It’s a sticky situation. But then again, looking at all the Joseph Smith had to deal with, it’s obvious that it’s going to be a struggle.
If a principle or commandment is true, then we are to follow it and ask for the Lord’s help in doing so. It doesn’t matter that there are challenges, but it is important to do what we can to make it successful and not let it be brought down or taken away.
Rob — thanks for replying with your thoughts.
Let me then use this as a chance to plug the post LDSA just published — that gives the link to the PDF of the Multihusband-Multiwife section of the GEMTAM book.
Also — the whole GEMTAM book project can be read and commented on at the FastPencil site and the Facebook open group page [if you do Facebook].
As for me and my tribe — we stick to pretty strict tribal vetting. Before anyone would be joined to our family — we want to make sure they are on the same page we are about Jesus Christ, about the gospel, and about our tribe.
And if they aren’t, then we suggest they form their own tribe — rather than ask them if they’d be interested in joining ours.
I guess I didn’t think about it too much, but when there are multiple husbands or wives, then if something sketchy is going on, it won’t be as easy to hide as it would be in a monogamous relationship.
Right — just as easily as one can point fingers at abusive polygamous situations [Warren Jeffs, etc.] — one could point fingers at monogamous relationships [abuse, cheating, etc.].
I’d rather we stop counting spouses as a way to determine a justified marriage family — and start looking at how we treat one another, and how much we have charity, etc.
See, prime example of how my belief window has stuff written on it about polygamy that I need to examine and correct. To me, when I think of plural marriages,what pops into my head first are modern day examples, usually those in the news. Those are groups where stuff hit the fan and some scandalous stuff was going on.
I think that is a common perception people have. Of course there are plenty of other modern day peoples that practice polygamy and quite commonly in certain areas of Africa and Asia. Yet I didn’t think of those and I didn’t think about the high percentage of monogamous relationships where abuse is so prevalent.
It’s so tragic how in today’s society where many have overcome their prejudices that gay people are evil and that white people can’t play basketball 🙂 and yet we are still stuck on so many false ideas on issues like polygamy that we just accept. When we don’t ever look at the individuals that we are judging instead of actually trying to know them. Then one could see if their beliefs hold up or are incorrect.
Justin asked:
Nah, it’s been a pleasure to have you guys participate in this blog. I don’t feel corrupted by your influence in the least.
Jeremiah asked:
Got anyone in mind? (Especially females. This blog needs a woman’s touch.)
Thought I would share some thoughts/insights, that may or may not be relevant to these posts. I have been following a Catholic inter-church debate between two priest. One priest has been trying to warn its members of the Popes apostacy and his leading the flock away from the true path. The other priest is defending the pope and the church and their infalliability, and how everyone should stick to the pope because he is Gods representative on earth and God will not allow him to lead the church astray.
I was stuck as how familiar this debate was to me and my own experience with the LDS church and ultimate ex-communication. The age old false doctrine of infaliabilty pops up in all religions/churchs and is a sure testimony that the religious status quoe is out of the way. The one priest is being threatened with ex-communication for not being in conformity with the current teachings of the Vatican.
Any time a religious organization turns into a thought policeing organization they are takeing peoples free agency away from them, this is “ant-Christ”, The current leadership of the LDS church is as corrupt as any the world has seen. It ex-communicates its members for not paying taxs to the federal reserve Illuminati which is the kingdom of the devil. It absolutely will not tolerate a dissenting voice in its midst. The general membership of the LDS church have become one of the most brainwashed people in the world. I just recently saw the results of a voteing pole that showed by color how each of the states would currently vote as republicans. The entire US would vote for Ron Paul except Utah which would vote for Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is a NWO plant, the Mormons would vote for him just because!
LDSA and Justin,
Can I bounce something off of you two and tell me if I’m being overly intellectual about this or what?
At first glance, I had a problem with the “multi-husband” aspect of the GEMTAM. This was probably due more to my state at the time, that being a great deal of research into the goings on of the 19th century Church.
I don’t remember when, exactly, that was, but it’s been at least a year or so. And as I’ve had the opportunity to embrace this “Counter-Culture” movement within Mormonism, I’ve taken the opportunity to read much more. I’ve read Paul Toscano’s “Whether there be One God or Many” quite a few times and without explicitly stating so, Toscano, in my mind, has painted a picture of Deity as we know it existing as more of a community of Gods working collectively for the welfare of their children. As you two have fleshed out the GEMTAM, it’s not a stretch at all to link the two concepts.
This leads me to a resolution of my initial apprehension of the “multi-husband” aspect. I realized, to some extent, that “carnal sexuality” is solely a human experience. I was opposed to the multi-husband aspect because I couldn’t bear the thought of another weiner in my wifes (or wives) hoo-ha(s). I then, couldn’t understand what celestial responsibility I would have for the children born to my wife (wives) should they, in reality, be the children of another if she has taken another husband. As I let it marinate, I determined that it doesn’t matter who the child belongs to, if they aren’t my children, my blood (seed) is no better than any other Celestial being, they would still belong to my tribe/family. And what greater act of charity than to engage in the salvation of (spirit) children that aren’t biologically yours. The wife knows 100% which children are hers (she birthed them) regardless of which husband of hers is the father, while the husband has to be 100% faithful to the stewardship.
If I’ve stepped off the deep end, please tell me, sometimes it’s hard to gauge where one may be.
Sounds fine to me.
It starts to sound like the description of charity that Mormon gave: “And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me…”
Concerns over paternity are one of the classic battlegrounds of patriarchy — and you’re right, a husband’s stewardship is to his wife[ves] and her children. A multi-husband tribe can help us, “to turn the hearts of the fathers [plural] to the children“.
Ditto what Justin just said.
It’s funny to me that on the post where I wrote:
would be the post that gets:
Can a monogamous nuclear family be a righteous, gospel-based tribe? Sure. If it arrived at that position through complete free-choice and consent of all parties.
That’s what the “A” is all about — allowing a group to arrive at its native equilibrium state [the point that requires no input of energy or force to exist].
Can a polgynous and/or polyandrous tribal family be a righteous, gospel-based tribe? Sure. If it arrived there by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, etc. — if it’s manifests plural marriages because of charity [instead of some doctrinal method of acheiving charity].
And it’s the establishment of righteous, gospel-based tribes that I desire [both for myself and everyone else].
What I’ve found [as we’ve worked on the GEMTAM book] is that the scriptural ideal for a gospel-based tribe of righteouness is egalitarian, multihusband-multiwife tribal anarchy.
How did I get there? Well, egalitarianism is a principle of the gospel. Stewardships are a principle of the gospel. Joint-stewardships are a principle of the gospel. Tribalism is a principle of the gospel. And anarchy is a principle of the gospel.
Oh yeah — and John:
I thought of your question when I was reading through the GEMTAM book chapter on multihusband-multiwife and found the part on reciprocal stewardships.
Perhaps it might also be helpful to think about a polyandrous family in terms of what Jesus prayed in John 17:
as it pertains to the point you raised — saying:
Be glorified in them.
So — on Sister Wives last night — there was this still-monogamous couple who are members of the polygamous-Mormon church that the Sister WIves’ family belonged to back in Utah.
Two comments made during the show made me and my wife think of this post:
(1) At least two (maybe three) of the wives admitted that they wouldn’t have gotten married as plural wives if they “had a choice”, meaning if it wasn’t a doctrinal requirement of their faith to “live the Principle”.
(2) The wife of the still-monogamous couple commented that they believe in polygyny so strongly that she is willing to “sacrifice their relationship” in order to live with plural wives.
Also — my wife’s first comment [before we started talking about how awful it is to sacrifice a marriage relationship for the sake of living polygamy] — was that she doesn’t understand why the still-monogamous couple [who’s having issues with how the man can find and court additional wives] doesn’t just move in with the Sister Wives family.
The LDS church isn’t much different. Everyone is expected to be married in the temple, for time and all eternity, in order to be eligible for exaltation. The only difference between the two churches is in the number of spouses that are doctrinally required. So, a man or a woman in the LDS church is just as pressured to get a temple-only marriage, as the members of the United Apostolic Brethren are to enter into polygamous marriage. Anyone who desires to remain single or married but unsealed (in our case), or single or monogamous (in their case) is excluded from the possibility of exaltation.
They do polygamy for polygamy’s sake and we do monogamous sealing for monogamous sealing’s sake. Both religions are extorting a behavior out of their respective congregations, using exaltation as the carrot.
People should just be taught the Lord’s sexual laws and have the sealing power explained and offered to them. They should be allowed to organize their relationships as they see fit, whether it be to remain single or to enter monogamy, polygyny, polyandry or multihusband-multiwife marriage and allow the sealers to seal all these relationship covenants so that they may remain throughout eternity.
I know Pres. Hinckley’s talk from General Conference 1998 [“What Are People Asking about Us?“] has come up in comments here before — when I was playing around at this site and I found that talk when I searched the word “plural marriage”.
Gordon said:
I didn’t remember that part…
A commenter on a post about the church working to either strengthen any-and-all families vs. being “Pro-Family”at Wheat and Tares, dba.brotherp, wrote:
The historical context of the family is polygamous tribes. It is not the idealized Western nuclear family of middle-income, college educated, five kids and a dog kinda home.
The church adopted itself into that institution [which is politically-termed “Pro-Family”], and re-framed the “eternal families” doctrine to foster wider recruitment. So currently, the LDS church is really only “pro-family” towards the pro-LDS church families.
On the homosexual marriage issue — I would give it as an educated opinion [not a prophecy] that the church will not sanction legal plural marriages in the United States [should they become legal through the legalization same-sex marriage] — and if push came to shove, then they’d legalize homosexual marriages before they legalized polygynous or polyandrous ones.
It already is legal for plural adults to co-habitate, have sexual relations with each other based on personal marriage covenants, and raise any resulting children — and the church would excommunicate any family found living this way.
The entire “pro-family” position-shift by the church in the 20th century was entirely about getting away from polygamous families — and has nothing to do with legality.
This will become evident when same-sex marriages are legalized.
D&C 19:31 “31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.”
There is a reason for this command. Also for Brother Josephs admonition that the men should “only have one wife unless the Lord directs otherwise”
If you are teaching doctrine other than the first principles then you are in error, unless you have been directly told to do so by the Lord. I am only going to refer to plurality of wives here because the whole polyandry thing is just too much to address right now. This is my understanding of how the gospel works and you can feel free to correct me. Faith first, then baptism, then laying on of hands, then remission of sins. Now these may be ordered any way but they are the first principles which MUST be fulfilled before one is on the straight and narrow path. In the BoM 2nephi 32:3 we read that after we have received the Holy Ghost THEN we shall feast upon the words of Christ and He will tell us all things that we should do. He may tell one to live polygny, another to sacrifice their son on an altar. Basically the Lord has a detailed plan for each one of us that is necessary for our own growth and exaltation. To teach a doctrine such as plural marriage can be quite a stumbling block for some and yet if you taught them to be led by the spirit they would most likely have the principle revealed to them eventually. Now, I have a gift that I am really grateful for and that is the ability to glean truth from whence it may come and also to shelve things that seem off or don’t make sense. Not everyone is like this though. I emailed a few posts to a friend of mine that had to do with the first principles of the gospel. She was so inspired and edified(as was I) that she took it upon herself to forward it to others. Some would like to know where I got the information from but I am very hesitant to say because doctrines like polyandry, whether true or not) could seriously lead someone astray. Another problem is reading really good, inspiring post, then reading something like this could cause some to cast it all out. I know that’s not your problem per se, but really should we not be our brothers keeper? And seek the welfare of their soul? I just think you’ve gone too far with this and will refer you again to the first quote. And THAT is my two bits. Peace.
I’m glad you decided to post this comment on the post where I wrote:
Because, essentially, this was the post where I articulated my feelings that plural marriages are useless as a religious doctrine or “tenet” [to quote D&C 19:31].
You know, I was just writing to Joana Smith earlier today. She’s asked about attributing me when she posts things I’ve written here — and I said:
So, I think that applies also to your experience, liv435, with sharing some of the posts on this site — while not wanting to share some of the others.
Many people are authority-whores — and they’ll toss-out great information on the baptism of fire, charity, the priesthood, etc. — because they find out the source is a site that also writes about anarchy and multihusband-multiwife tribes — like that negates the good content that got them all interested in the material in the first place.
You say you are hesitant to share where you got the posts from — then I say don’t. Say you wrote them — or a friend you met online wrote them — or they were left in an envelope on your doorstep — whatever.
You also said something that caught my attention, liv435:
I’ve commented about it before — but I’ll put it here too:
My wife asked me [when we started the FastPencil site for the GEMTAM book project] if I’ve ever bothered to think about what it might mean for me spiritually if someone reads the stuff I put out there publicly — and then they try it because it sounds good and logical, etc. — but then it ruins their life because it wasn’t expedient for them to make such a change.
I think “expediency” means that there is a difference between being “right” and being “proper”. I wouldn’t want to forgo “proper” in my desire for what is “right” — essentially making an idol out of what’s “right”. And I think that’s the message behind a scripture like Romans 14, which is saying that even if it isn’t “wrong” to eat meat or drink wine or to not observe the Saturday sabbath [etc.] — it doesn’t matter how “right” you are if eating meat, drinking wine, and ignoring Saturday sabbath [etc.] causes your brother or sister to stumble and/or take offense.
Which is what makes me wonder about the balance-point between reaching out to preach to the lost — and leaving people alone to travel their own journey and loving them as they are, without bothering them with me and my beliefs.
How is it that publishing views on anarchy and marriage on a blog make me no longer “my brother’s keeper” — no longer caring “for the welfare of his soul”? Wouldn’t is be beneficial for people to be exposed to all sorts of views/opinions? Or is it better to leave them be and say nothing?
I’m not down with supporting exposing people to all kinds of views. It’s similar to exposing your children to things they’re just not ready, emotionally, to handle. If we take the scriptures for our guide we will find that after a conversion experience a person began sharing their testimony with everyone. Desiring them to obtain the same. I don’t recall hard things to swallow being taught anywhere?
I read this post because the title “Polygamy For Polygamy’s Sake” peaked my interest as a subject close to my heart. Living amongst fundamentalists my entire married life, I have rarely seen them enter plural marriage because they felt called of God to. Almost every family and group I know has it as a way of life and that really bothers me. Not only that but they leave behind the first principles of the gospel and really believe that they will be heirs of Celestial glory because of how many wives they have. I think their will be weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth for these people! And it’s really heart breaking. So we seem to agree on that.
Moroni 7; 13 “But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.”
I have used this verse as my guide in life and come to understand that it is directed to me personally. For example, I like certain Christian songs that have a beat. They inspire me. They make me want to praise God. Well a friend of mine is offended by anything with a beat to it so she thinks it’s evil. And she is concerned about me:) I told her if my music doesn’t “invite and entice her to love God” then it’s not for her. Doesn’t mean it’s not for me. Everyone has a different path. There are a lot of posts on this site that have really put a fire in me to repent and get right with God so I have to call it “good” and will continue to read them. However there is another scripture that says, ” Abstain from all appearance of evil. “(1Thess.5;22) I also take this as my own personal guide and must live by it. So I won’t be reading any more posts on here about polygamy. I actually have someone in my family who was involved in a polyandry/polygny tribe thing. His wife got “married” to another “husband” and within a year their marriage was over, they left the group and their six kids have had a rough “kids of divorce life” ever since.
Thanks for taking my totally disagreeing with your beliefs (on marriage) so well.
This has been my impression of fundamentalist Mormons — so your experience confirms what I was trying to get at when I wrote this post.
Right — so the doctrine of expediency always brings me back to Romans 14 — where I think Paul would say [to use your story] — listening to music with a beat does not make a person “unclean”, and not listening to music with a beat will not make a person “clean”.
But would we say that musicians shouldn’t produce music that has a beat because some people are “just not ready, emotionally, to handle” it?
That’s anarchy at work — there is a diverse picture of ideas posted here by multiple contributors — take what you like and toss what you don’t. You can totally disagree with any or all of my beliefs — I take no offense.
I think I may have only posted this story when I was on FB — so I’ll share it here. We’ve learned recently that a member in our area is friends with a non-LDS married couple. The wife cheated on her husband and when she confessed to him — he told her that if she really had feelings for the man, then he should move in with them and live there as her husband. For them, polyandry is what kept their marriage together.
Now I grew-up with a “rough kids of divorce life” myself — and I had monogamously married parents.
That’s why I wouldn’t propose we allow only monogamous marriages — nor that we should only allow polygamous ones. To focus on the number of spouses removes us from the core purpose of marriage, which is knitting people together into strong families.
I think our beliefs on marriage should be informed by:
If that leads to consenting adults to monogamy — then good for them, I hope they have a fruitful life.
But it should be just as free to go the other way — and lead consenting adults to polygyny, polyandry, or multihusband-multiwife families — and that not be judged as any more or less righteous.
The principles are 1. Individual agency 2. Love
We can neither handle (make sense of or spread) nor control (use) a doctrine if we go astray from these principles.
I have a friend who believes in polygyny he is perfectly versed in LDS doctrine. But he thinks polyandry would destroy the family.
As we were speaking on the phone he was stating this thought and he said, “But the idea of having more than one husband…What kind of a family life is that?…” I interjected, “Yes what a strong family that would be.” But my words landed on a deaf ear. Why? Because he cannot place a multihusband marriage in the correct context. And that context is love. Love between the two men as well as between the men and the woman. This man is my best friend. Even though apart for many years we have independently adopted so many of the same truths about religion and government. But why is this one such a stumbling block?
Because he doesn’t have true charity for his brothers. He says if a man had sex with his wife he would want to kill the man. Well he doesn’t qualify the circumstances but we would suppose he is talking about a rape. But he isn’t just saying rape. I know if a man just want to try and have see if his wife wanted to have sex with him my friend would hate that guy instantly and desire to destroy him. It is as Jesus warned us. If you are angry with your brother then you are going toward killing him. In this he and I am positive many other men who might read this have not allowed charity to be part of their thinking on this principle. This prevents them from comprehending the doctrine because they refuse to apply the principle of charity.
What if his wife had a desire to marry (be intimate with) another man? He says there is no possibility of that she says the idea is crazy. My friend truly believes that women and men are different in this basic way that women never really want to love more than one man but it is natural and good for men to love more than one woman.
Oh how easy it is to deny our nature, to even deny reality in order to tend to the heart of someone we truly love. And yet what a house of cards we build by denying the way God created us by denying our agency either to ourselves or to our loved one. People who have heard of this doctrine and have not taken the time to read Sex at Dawn which is freely available for anonymous download don’t really want to know the truth. They want to remain in their lala land of a world where personal agency can be traded for a mess of pottage dictated by the morals of the world without consequences. There are extreme consequences for this.
The typical monogamous vows destroy the God given agency each person has in order to obtain what? The same destruction of the other person’s agency to procreate with whom ever they agree with. And why do we do it? Because our false religions (LDS chief among them) tell us it is the will of God? No that is our cover, our excuse to stay in the hassle free zone. We do it for the same reason we always give up our freedoms. For the false promise of security!! It was Satan’s lie from the start. “Not one soul shall be lost!…TSA to prevent another 911!!! sound familiar?
So in this case we say “I want exclusive access (selfishness opposite of sharing or charity also a denying your wife her agency) to this woman’s body and in exchange I give up my God given agency.” By the way did God tell you to do that?
And what are the results? Both we and our wives must deny the nature of our creation. As men we must try and force our selves to not be attracted to any other women. And as we become less attracted to any woman we automatically are less attracted to our wife because she is a woman too. Each child is a blessing to all those who love it. And by entering into these mono contracts we ensure that many woman even in our circle of contact will not have children. And many that do will be single mothers because all forms of plural marriage are outlawed. And the whole concept of a tribe which can provide all the requirements to sustain life indpendent of any corrupt governments or false religions is absent from our minds. So tyranny rages on ans Satan laughs his spiritual ass off at how secure we all are.
While I wouldn’t want a multi husband multi wife marriage (I don’t see the scriptural reasoning for it, even though I’ve read several articles on here about it – and I think the D&C 132 part to Emma was just a test), I like the idea of polyandry if God would allow it. (I don’t see a scriptural reason for that, either.) Having two husbands sounds pretty cool to me. I enjoy the many good conversations I’ve had with men. I like the strength and stability a man can bring to a relationship.
So Toni do I understand correctly that if God allowed it you would like to have more than one husband. But you would not personally want them to have other wives, you would be their only wife. Is that right?
Andf I read you other comment on spicing up you church experience. PLease don’t worry. I am 100% with you on not trying to convince another person of my view point.
Now other people reading this are gonna say “That’s not the DYC I know.” Touche. But I have stated I believe that God does not use force against anyone. And recently I took it a step further and realize I don’t believe God even tries to get us to change our ideas much. I think he just lets natural law and experiences teach us. Sure prophets might attempt some convincing and if someone keeps at me to prove to them or show them in essence asking me to convince them then I labor at it. But more and more I don’t like it.
So here with you Toni no way not gonna happen. I am just curious adn want to understand your expression.
You know, I made the comment on the other thread first. After I made the comment above, I thought, “That sounds pretty inconsistent. Why am I okay with polyandry or polygyny, but not with both at the same time?”
I’m still thinking that one through. In trying to figure out what’s in my head, I suppose I’m thinking along the lines of orgies, where 6 men and 6 women each have 6 spouses – you know, it isn’t like I have a few spouses and my spouses have a few; it’s more like *all* of us are married to each other, and it seems like a mass of confusion. Where is the order? Where is the . . . I don’t want to use the word “commitment” but can’t think of a better word – something seems out of order.
That’s as near as I can figure out what’s in my head. I see confusion. I see lack of commitment, but I don’t know why.
So, the short answer is, I don’t care if my spouse has more than one wife if I have more than one husband – and from there the whole thing breaks down in my mind into utter nonsense.
■ “Everything that God gives us is lawful and right; and it is proper that we should enjoy His gifts and blessings whenever and wherever He is disposed to bestow; but if we should seize upon those same blessings and enjoyments without law, without revelation, without commandment, those blessings and enjoyments would prove cursings and vexations in the end, and we should have to lie down in sorrow and wailings of everlasting regret. But in obedience there is joy and peace unspotted, unalloyed; and as God has designed our happiness—and the happiness of all His creatures, he never has—He never will institute an ordinance or give a commandment to His people that is not calculated in its nature to promote that happiness which He has designed” (Smith, Teachings, 256).
I thought this statement of Joseph Smiths really drove home what I was trying to express. While it’s true that it is a slothful servant who has to wait to be commanded in all things. If we take certain things into our own hands to demand the blessing I.E. Plural marriage. It will prove a cursing instead. What makes a slothful servant is one who sees that something needs to be done and doesn’t do it. Or knows they are in need of repentance yet procrastinate. The ones who are waiting for “one mighty and strong” before they come unto Christ. NOT the ones who don’t live plural marriage. There needs to be balance and wisdom in things.
liv435 — I think we can agree that things should be governed by the doctrine of expediency.
To quote that linked post:
Which is what I feel about the fundamentalist Mormon doctrine of requiring plurality of wives like you’ll be damned if you aren’t polygynous.
I write in this OP:
because it’s my opinion that marriage is about growing strong families. It’s not about counting spouses. I’ve gotten to the point where I utterly reject monogamy [must have only one spouse to be “righteous”] — just as much as I utterly reject any other “must have” marriage arrangements [like fundamentalist polygyny].
I can completely support any family is living in monogamy, or in polygyny, or in polyandry, or in a multihusband-multiwife arrangement — so long as the arrangement is based on consent and it’s knitting that group of people into a strong and loving family:
I’d say we go by:
And let that led consenting adults where it will.
liv435, I think you are absolutely correct. It all boils down to what God desires us to do, when He wants us to do it. He is the bottom line.
Whether or not something is “expedient” needs to be determined by God. We have the ability to receive revelation for a reason. God will command what is expedient for US personally if we listen. And if obey then He will continue to bring us up. Line upon line, precept upon precept. I may be misunderstanding what you’re saying (not being the quickest gun in the west) but what I’m gathering is that you feel like regardless of whether or not you have been directed to do so by God, consenting adults should, if they desire, take multiple spouses. I think you take way too much liberty with that verse too. You added the “consenting adults” clause yourself. I’m sure when the verse was written it was a general understanding that it was restricted to include only consenting adults. I’m also quite sure it wasn’t referring to marrying animals, someone of the same sex, your own children, trees, multiple husbands etc… He was simply pointing out the sanctity of the marriage covenant and anyone who would try to restrict that would be in the wrong. If we can interpret it any way we want then I may decide to marry my washing machine. I LOVE my washing machine!
Certainly.
The GEMTAM chapter “Multihusband-multiwife Marriage and the Law of Sarah” expounds on D&C 132:61 by saying:
The Lord does work among people according to the righteous desires of their heart.
In D&C 132:61 — it was the man’s desire for another wife that decided the issue as to whom he would justifiably marry. The Lord grants unto the children of men “according to the desires of their hearts”. And a marriage covenant between a man and a woman is a righteous desire.
Marriage is seen by God as an honorable act:
Marrying a second spouse is the opposite of selfish. Because [with the example of a man] — a second wife carries the responsibilities of a stewardship [a wife and her children have claim on a husband for their maintenance].
It’s whoredoms and adultery [which carry no such permanent relations and responsibilities] that are selfish. If a man is truly selfish — he will not marry, but will simply take on a mistress or he will divorce his first wife and marry the second, etc.
A second woman would only marry an already-married man as a fully-uncoerced, freely-consented choice if he were capable of supporting her and any of her children. Also, if a man mistreats his first wife, then it is doubtful that any woman would want to be his second wife [unless she was told she had to, if she wanted to be “exalted” or whatever].
In other words, there are built-in defenses against marrying for selfish reasons.
I find no scriptures that indicate that any marriage is selfish or dishonorable. Only in Jacob 2 do we find God prohibiting the taking of concubines and more than one wife — but that was a special case pertaining to the tribe of Lehi’s kin. Besides, even when there were those who disobeyed this commandment among the Nephites, they were never told to separate or divorce their plural wives and concubines. Once married, God recognized the union as binding.
Now a husband who has entered into a vow of exclusiveness creates a special situation. The gospel teaches us to keep all our vows that we have entered into, so if he asks her to release him from the vow in order that he may take a second wife or concubine, and she chooses instead to hold him to it, then she does not sin.
It is entirely at her discretion whether to release him or not from his vow he made with her or not. He made the vow and now he must keep it until she releases him from it. If he takes another wife anyway [before being released by her] — then he commits the sin of adultery. Therefore, all men under vows of exclusiveness must first obtain release from those vows before they can proceed on with the law of Sarah and start to marry additional wives and concubines. There is no exception to this law.
In the case of polyandry, because a wife is exclusively bound to her husband as her steward, without any stated vow of exclusiveness. Since every husband she has is an exclusive arrangement, when she takes another husband — she will need express permission from each and every one of her current husbands to marry the new husband. This is b/c when a woman marries a second husband, in reality she adds a second steward into the family — simultaneously establishing a joint-stewardship between the second and first husbands.
Adding a new husband is always a “bigger deal” than adding a new wife because plural husbands start forming a united order between joint-stewards — instead of just adding more concerns to the same, singular stewardship.
Establishing united orders of joint-stewardship is a righteous thing, but care must be taken that each new husband is equally yoked in the gospel and tribe as all the other husbands are, and on the same page as to tribal and gospel goals.
Also, the GEMTAM has a chapter, “Adult, consensual polyandry is never condemned in the scriptures“, that discusses some of these concepts as well — specifically directed Biblical polygynists — who think God condemns polyandry.
Well yes — the tribal model, of course, operates on universal consent, going both ways, allowing both men and women multiple spouses — that’s because doing one’s business by the common consent of the people manifested by their vote is gospel-based.
Should the adults not be “consenting”?
I think that’s what the first two parts of this post are saying…
I do think that it’s the union of one man and one woman being spoken about when the word of God speaks about “marriage” — it’s just I haven’t seen anyone explain to me where it describes humans being limited to only one such marriage union during their lifetime.
Justin I take exception to something you said. It was this:
“Now a husband who has entered into a vow of exclusiveness creates a special situation. The gospel teaches us to keep all our vows that we have entered into, so if he asks her to release him from the vow in order that he may take a second wife or concubine, and she chooses instead to hold him to it, then she does not sin.
It is entirely at her discretion whether to release him or not from his vow he made with her or not.”
I won’t bother to back this up by a scriptural quote because it should be self evident to all life in the universe.
That which we are willing to inflict upon another, eternal law will, must inflict upon us. It is the ever present law of the harvest. If it were not in effect God could not remain God, no one could become as God and Satan and followers could never be cast out or weakened by their choices.
Why is this so? Because there would be no blessing by obedience to law. there would be nothing lost by failing to live a law. There would be no cause and effect. The independent agency of all intelligences would be rendered meaningless since they could do evil and have good restored to them. There would be no existence.
And the atonement mercifully does not fully set it aside even in this mortal probation. Because absent this cause and effect how could we learn. if we were rewarded good for doing wrong then how could we learn truth?
But don’t worry it is operative.
Therefore the woman who exercises her so called “right” to hold a man to a vow of exclusivity will in this life begin feeling the effects of her choice. And it is quite readily observable to us all.
Now anyone who takes exceptions with the principles I am about to state has not read or refuses to accept the truths in the books available on this subject. Sex at Dawn and you own nature as a human being chief among them.
Men are by their created natures and therefore righteously attracted to multiple females. They are perfectly capable of truly loving many women at one time. Loving them even in an intimate way.
Women also are capable of this. Women in addition in the natural state are not sexually fulfilled by just one man because their capacity is so much greater.
Now I can hear so many saying, “I am a man/woman and I am fully satisfied with my one spouse. In fact i can’t keep up with her/him.”
Anyone who has mentally and therefore to a degree emotionally adopted the mindset of monogamy is no longer in the state of nature. they have denied the nature of their creation and have thereby began killing their powers.
When a young man goes on an LDS mission he is expected to deny his feelings from any young women. If he does this then those feelings die in him. he has under the direction of the church leaders killed a sacred thing. And it may never return in this life.
You women ever hear of this experience? “When we were first married my husband was so romantic. We had wonderful relations quite often. Now after 7 years (or even a lot less) he doesn’t seem so interested in me.”
Now laying aside all possible causes of general lack of kindly treatment etc. Why on earth should any woman be surprised that her monogamous man has a decreased interest in sexual relations or even for her femine company? You are a woman. So are the other 3 billion ladies on the planet. You have told your husband, “Don’t look at them with sexual interest. Don’t think of them with sexual interest. Do not admire the constant parade of sexually atractive daughters of God you may see every day.” In short you command him on pain of punishment (perhaps withdrawl of sexual closeness to you even) to not act upon the God created nature, affections and righteous desires he has been hardwired with. And he must fight against this and deny this many times a day. And with each time he tells his heart and body, “No do not desire that, Don’t look, Don’t think of that” he is killing the natural functions of his brain and heart.
And then you are surprised when eternal law kicks in and he loses interest in sexual intimacy. You have required the impossible. Love and desire me while turning away from everyone else you see that is the exact same sex as me. The human brain and psyche can not do that. And we wonder why there is ED?
And men do the exact same thing it is just a lot more based in the emotions but has its effects on the body just a surely.
I heard one man tell me his wife can not imagine having more than one husband. To her it soundslike insanity. I asked myself what kind of demands does he place on here? It reminded me of the man whose wife was dying and she asked him if he planned to remarry. He said, “No never.”
Now supposing this man was being honest and not just saying it to appease his dying wife or even if you like, trying to not hurt her heart. Sisters would that make you happy? Or can you see it for what it really is. This particular wife took it that he was sincere and repsonded, “Oh have I been that bad of a wife to you that you don’t want to be married anymore?”
That’s a good question. But it is probably that by obeying the desires of his wife he had killed the very mainspring of his desire for female companionship. It is the inevitable reslut of denying our natures.
So… can we deny other’s the right to exercise their God given measure of their creation and yet ourselves remain without loss of blessings?
If that is true then there is no law of the harvest and the universe is continually injust.. So I say not it can’t be done. And what of the contract? Are contracts which require that we deny our God given natures justified before God? We can be forgiven for neteringinto them when we have been lied to by the church and all of society.. But as we awake to real justice we would see that we entered the contract without sufficient understanding.
I hate to disagree with your comment because I’m with you on the issue of sexual repression/suppression leading to unhappy people and unhappy families, etc.
But in my mind — that has nothing to do with a case where
a husband has entered into a vow of exclusiveness” — because a person has a right to expect the terms of their covenant to be honored. If the husband and wife entered into their covenant with terms of marital exclusivity — then even if one of them changes their mind — even if it is for a good reason, e.g. realizing that:
The other person still has a right to expect the terms of their covenant to be honored [which terms included exclusiveness]. He promised her exclusiveness and she has a right to expect it — unless her mind changes along with his.
A marriage covenant requires the consent of both the husband and the wife. A man cannot marry a woman without her consent — and tell her that it’s all OK b/c she’ll “come to love him later” [even though that may be true]. Likewise, he couldn’t just marry a 2nd woman without his 1st wife’s consent — and tell her that it’s OK b/c she’ll “come around to it later.” [even thought that may be true too].
Now:
So what is the husband in this scenario to do? As a servant-husband — he is to only use persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, etc. in dealing with the issue.
Should he go out and marry the 2nd wife anyway [ignoring the vow of exclusiveness that he made] — then he would not be ordained of God because he is ignoring the consent of his wife. The servants [priesthood holders, husbands] must hearken to the voice of their masters [church members, wives] in all things.
For all we know — the woman may likely have a reason for why she requires exclusivity to feel emotionally fulFILLed — and a righteous husband may be moved with compassion for her and instead choose to submit himself to the monogamous vows he made to her at the beginning until a time when her mind may be changed and she’ll happily grant consent.
Thanks, sort of, for your quick reply Justin. I really do love you man.
I say “sort of” because you know our time zones are about 13 hours different. So when I finished posting my comment it was time to sleep here. And then when I woke up I thought “I stated that a little harshly. Let me get back there and edit it to just state the principle in its general terms.”
But no, too late. My night is your day and you had already replied.
But your reply is correct in my mind and we are in agreement. I have proof of my words and I have my personal experience as a testimony that God agrees with what you have written. My wife entered into our marriage with the understanding that it would be monogamous. Yes I had talked to her a lot about plural marriage but I did not demand that she accept the principle as part of our marriage.
In our subsequent conversations and my efforts to have us practice it she stated that she knew I had never had sexual relations outside of my two previous monogamous marriages and she said she expected that to be the way our marriage would be. That was good logic and was a verifiable basis for the contract/covenant she accepted.
Everyone reading should be asking, “Then why did you marry her if you knew she didn’t accept plural marriage but that is what you wanted?” Simple. I asked with full faith that God could and would direct me to the woman who was exactly right for me to marry. By many infallible proofs God granted that request. For other people God may say to marry whom they choose. But since I was 18 He revealed the pattern for me was to select the type of woman I wanted then ask His guidance in the actual choice. I have seen that it is essential for my progress to follow this pattern.
So the woman which God presented to me as the best for me to marry was not converted to plural marriage. And despite my understanding that it is a denial of our natures and that monogamy is it is an inferior covenant. And no I donot accept it as just expedient at least not in the eternal perspective. Obviously for this time in our progression (my wife and I) it is the expedient law to follow. But it is not expedient to have this type of covenant remain to an eternal duration. But for this time it was the will of God that I proceed and marry her and that I stay with her and do just as you Justin, have said in your reply. to use persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness.
This is actually super good practice because it is
the
way God always and only works. So too must all things in my kingdom flow unto me without compulsory means.
But as you state Justin the consequences of our wife’s actions are real and inescapable. It does not condemn them nor us to not eventually receive all of God’s offered blessings. But it does give us the opportunity to learn by our own experience to know good from evil and to eventually choose that which eternal.
So yes for sure it is not right to force a woman into a marriage she does not agree with. And once entered into the man or woman should honor the agreement they have made.
There will be consequences for accepting and requiring the other party to accept the contract which denies our natures. But unless God says to break the contract He will not support us in dishonoring it.
Now there I have put in one of those “ifs” or “unless” clauses. And here is the meaning of it.
God can easily command us to change course. He can direct us to withdraw from the contract just as He directed us to enter into it.
He can say thou shalt not kill and then later He can say, Thou shalt utterly destroy (kill them all and and let Me sort it out).
Thanks again Justin.
One last point. As much as we might be saddened by the loss of our “powers” and “opportunities” it is my conviction that we and our wives will one day realize how many blessings they were missing out on by not adopting the principle of plural marriage. And for you men who can not grasp the polyandry portion of the true order of plural marriage you too will one day say something akin to , “What was I thinking? Man this is the only way to live!”
And that is the point one day we will all realize it is the only way to LIVE eternally. Anything less is not sustainable in the eternal worlds. Not by fiat but by immutable truth.
As I would have expected, the Wheat & Tares poll about Why did Joseph Smith start polygamy? has:
the top response so far [56 votes in].