Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have read the essays, I guess my concern though is unless you are actually seeking out the information, I doubt it will be taught or widely known in the standard church curriculum. I whole-heartedly agree on being cautious about conspiracy theories, and I did not mean to imply I had jumped on the conspiracy bandwagon, I simply meant that the events surrounding this particular historical item are so muddied it is hard to find the truth. You are totally right, it would have been a grand scale effort to keep that many people quite, but you are also right that not a single child came from those polygamous marriages, and even the ones that Fawn Brodie speculated about were disproved with DNA evidence a few years back. I guess that does support the idea that most of the marriages were only spiritual in nature and not physical, but still the polyandry portion of it all is still perplexing and bothersome. Still working out my thoughts about this as well, so not sure how much help I will be, but I did think I would share a perspective that someone had regarding the three degrees of glory within the celestial kingdom itself. I know that whoever presented the idea was a guest on Mormon Stories Podcast, but I cannot recall what episode it was on, if anyone can remind me that would be great. Anyway, this person held this particular idea in relation to potential changes in regard to gay marriage. They had said, we believe there are three different kingdoms essentially, within the celestial kingdom itself. One was for the single people we know, and the other was for the married people. I have heard some people say the third is actually the single people split into kingdom by sex, so one kingdom for single females, one kingdom for single males, and the other for married couples. However, this particular guest had indicated that there is no solid doctrine on that idea, so he proposed something new. He had suggested what if that middle kingdom was for gay married couples. As I listened to this I thought to myself about the doctrines on polygamy and how there is so much talk in the early days of the church about polygamy being essential to gain celestial glory. What if perhaps polygamists were in the first kingdom, monogamists were in the second kingdom and singles were in the third kingdom. None of this is doctrine, just my own thoughts building upon the thoughts of this other individual on John’s podcast, but it all seems very tidy and linear to me if you are 1. single in the first kingdom, 2. married to one person in the second kingdom and then 3. married to multiple people in the third kingdom.
I also think about how we are taught that wherever we end up in heaven is where we will be most comfortable, and will therefor be happy. So if you and I are unhappy being polygamists, we would not have to be in the 3rd kingdom. I also think about something I was taught in regards to judgement day. The idea was that it will not be God and Christ that keep us out of heaven, it will be ourselves. We will have Christ beckoning us to come to him, and us not coming because we are not ready, and we will therefor decide our own kingdom or placement, knowing where we fit. Perhaps the same thing will be of polygamy. Even though you are sealed to these two women, I can hardly imagine God forcing you to live in that state if it makes you unhappy, I would imagine him asking whom you wanted to be with for eternity and then placing you in that 2nd glory.
Once again, just speculation and talking here, but if anyone has any doctrine based ideas or references from GA in regards to what I have said above I would love to see my purely speculated ideas somewhat validated. It at least gives me some peace thinking that we do not have to be polygamists in the next life.
Thanks Orson, I see great rationality in your comments. I had not thought about other copies being written down and perhaps a copy of the original still being in circulation. What are your thoughts about the delay in time however with the revision? I suppose the time frame still bothers me. SilentDawning wrote:MomofTwo wrote:My lack of knowledge only confirmed to the non-member that I’d been “brainwashed”, even though I don’t consider what happened to me “brainwashing”. I don’t infer such nefarious motives on the church leaders, but I do feel more disclosure would have been nice when I was looking into the church.
I spent a lot of time in other states during my youth, and interacting with people very much against the church. In our hometown near Seattle there was a very large denomination that had a Sunday School class all about Mormons and what to ask us. I am surprised I did not encounter hard questions like this sooner that would have piqued my interest in other ideas at an earlier age. But that said, if I had, I wonder how I would have reacted. I feel that the church shoots itself in the foot by keeping these things so secretive, it would be better to educate us about our history so we are prepared to handle these kinds of concerns as they arise, rather than having to hear them from a negative source.
Daeruin wrote:I had never heard of Carla Kelley before. Is her writing similar at all to Georgette Heyer?
Ha ha she is nothing like that, her books are actually sold at Deseret Book, she is more of a romantic writer. I am a sucker for a good period piece, ha ha I really do love to read a diversity of stuff. But I am right there with you, Rothfuss is simply amazing, I am going to have a very long year waiting for book 3, although the book on Arie coming out could be a great appetizer!
I still struggle with how I feel about women holding the priesthood, not sure right now if I even believe in the priesthood, but one thing I can say for sure, is that I have always firmly believed that I would stand as an individual before God on judgement day and that he would judge me by my own merits. I feel that the current system in the church is one of men over women, and if the current teachings are true then it would be more like me being judged with my husband there going, “well I tried to get this ignorant woman to listen to me and she just wouldn’t” (side note: my husband is nothing like this, best guy out there, but this doctrine still irks me). The temple ordinances make me feel like a child sometimes, that my husband will always be better than me and that I need to listen to him because he is oh so wise. I feel this defeats the purpose of growth we testify of in the church. It is like a religious glass ceiling for women, you will be able to learn and grow, but somehow you will never be as wise or good at hearkening unto the Lord as your husband. Also, it has always upset me that I would never even have the opportunity of holding most church leadership positions. I am a go-getter, very creative and organized, task oriented, caring, etc. I feel I would have a lot to offer, but I am already discredited because of my gender. I know there are men just like me out there and they do great jobs, and I am not saying our current leaders do not have these qualities, because they most certainly do, but it is like going to apply for a job and not even being able to turn in your resume. You don’t even get a second glance. What if I want to help build up the kingdom? What if I believe in it, have great ways of sharing the gospel, etc? It is the principal of absolute exclusion that bothers me, even if I cannot hold the priesthood, why do I never get to be in the decision making room either? Why do I need someone to hold my hand all through life, I thought that I came here to prove myself worthy, not have someone tell me what to do.
One last thing, doesn’t the idea of your husband needing to tell you what to do sound slightly like Satans plan in the pre-existence? Where does my agency come in? Is my agency the ability to either say yes or no to my husband? If I do not listen to him then I am breaking a covenant, right? So logically I am supposed to always hearken to him, like I hearken to the brethren, with a yes sir and a salute, no questions asked?
One of my very first “uh-oh” moments came with the revision history of D&C and its relation to polygamy doctrine, particularly the 1835 Marriage section of the D&C and its later revision/omition and replacement by Section 132. That really disturbed me, particularly the explanation that we did not have a copy of section 132 written down by Joseph himself since Emma “burned” it. The whole thing had me sort of agreeing with Rock Watermann and that Joseph was not a polygamist and that Section 132 was added later to justify the actions of Young and Co. Interesting to me that they still have not found any proof of DNA descendants of Joseph through Polygamy, but I digress. The point being, we are never taught our actual history, and when I can then go right to church websites and see the revisions and early editions myself, and their contents, seeing that we had originally laid out that marriage is between one man and one woman, only to 30 years later revise it and attach it to Joseph, well, it is really easy for me to start see the ravelings of a conspiracy theory. “I would like to bear my testimony, I know the church is true…” Our first fast and testimony meeting after starting “down the rabbit hole,” was filled with this sentence. You are so right on having testimony rhetoric drilled into us! It is either this memorized testimony, or some older person gets up and tells a 30 minute story about going grocery shopping. I feel that at church I had too much filler brought to me and not enough meat as far as learning goes. I was getting nothing from it, and the same old watered down lesson manuals did not help either.
I am so sorry about your spouse, I have been lucky with my husband. I will admit, he is a bit further down the rabbit hole than I am, already taking off his garments and trying alcohol, I am not quite ready to take those steps, but we are still very much supportive. I hope that your wife can find a way to keep an open mind/heart, but it really is so hard, particularly when children are involved. My heart goes out to you, and like so many have echoed, you are very much not alone.
