Based on my experience, I would guess that the majority of LDS women under age 65 would say that polygamy is NOT an eternal principle and that it doesn’t require any earthly worrying as a result. While the men are probably not worrying about it (although any of them who are married to me should think twice about expecting additional wives in the future), my impression is that a higher percentage of them believe it is an eternal principle that will be practiced long term.
Are the men in the church far more polygamy-neutral in their views than the women? If so, it probably depends on how much they buy into the idea of traditional patriarchy (in which the man demands a hot dinner on the table nightly in Fred Flintstone fashion). Most LDS husbands are fairly progressive in my experience, changing diapers and being nurturing, considering themselves equal caregivers to their children. Even so, my guess is that many LDS men figure it could be polygamous later or not and that if not, cool, and if so, bonus! In which case, I kind of want to kick their teeth in. No offense.
To bolster this assumption, men who are consecutively monogamous in their lifetime may be sealed to more than one spouse while women who are consecutively monogamous are not sealed to more than one spouse. Is that evidence that there will be polygamy in the eternities, or simply that leaders used to believe that, and the church is slow to change? My guess is that we are simply slow to change, and that barring a mandate from Heaven, most of the leaders assume (perhaps rightly) that it will all be worked out in the end.Ray has elsewhere shared his heterodox view that relationships in the eternities will be non-sexual and possibly polyandrous. That sounds a little like the Greek Gods minus the sex. I’m neither convinced nor dismissive of this notion, and so I include it as an interesting theory.
But still, I wonder what the rest of you think will be the case in the eternities.[poll id=”5″]
Isn’t it weird that this kind of thing even crosses our minds? So, am I correct in thinking that men are less repulsed by the idea of eternal futuristic polygamy? How would men feel if it were polyandry instead of polygamy?
Discuss.
Comments 75
” from Venus, Men are from Kolob”
“(although any of them who are married to me should think twice about expecting additional wives in the future),”
🙂 You crack me up sometimes. Poor guy married to you. 🙂
“I kind of want to kick their teeth in. No offense.” Classic!
“Ray has elsewhere shared his heterodox view that relationships in the eternities will be non-sexual” Now that’s aggravating.
What was the post about? No just kidding. I voted the third one. I’ll be very disappointed if it isn’t so, that day when I’ll posses a perfect eternal ‘male’ body.
Well I don’t know, but I do care–it’s a question worth asking. I suppose your views on this are largely dependent on how you feel about how inspired polygamy was in the first place. If you are somewhat iffy on that, then you are going to really be questioning the idea of polygamy in the next life.
I personally reject the concept of a physically non-intimate being (note, I do not say sexual, and I say nothing of reproduction–these are different). For me personally, and I dare say a good number of others, the idea of physical intimacy of some type ending at ANY point is the very definition of hell. I would quickly go insane. Does this mean sexual intercourse is the only type of physical intimacy that could fill the role that it does now? Hardly–my imagination isn’t that limited. That said, intercourse fills more than one role in marriage (reproduction being merely the most commonly discussed in the church). Will we reproduce via sexual means in the next life? That I don’t know. But I think that physical intimacy is too great a part of our psychological make-up as a species to simply go away in the next life.
As far as the monogamy vs. polygamy question, let me say this: I’m glad I don’t have to sort out the mess that we mortals have created for ourselves through the numerous marriages and divorces and remarriages. I don’t think anyone will be forced to live in a relationship in the celestial kingdom with which they are less than perfectly happy. By definition. Otherwise it would be a touch difficult to receive that fullness of joy we’ve been promised, now wouldn’t it?
I think there will be voluntary polygamy, including equally likely polygyny and polyandry. And intimacy will definitely be part of it, but how physical it is depends on the exact details of our physical bodies, I think. I think it will be sexual in some way, but perhaps in a way somewhat different than we experience it here.
I chose 3 because that was the closest choice to what I believe. It seemed to imply polygyny only, though, which is certainly not what I think. I think nobody will be in any sort of relationship they don’t want. I also think the only reason “the principle” was practiced here on earth as mostly polygyny with the males doing the asking is that our patriarchal culture was/is slanted that way. I expect matrilineal matriarchal cultures in other times and places have probably slanted the opposite way. Of one thing I’m absolutely sure and that is that heaven is fair. Women aren’t second class citizens there. If there’s polygyny, then, there must also be polyandry to the same degree.
I have a testimony that polyandry would be a great form of marriage, even a higher form than monogamy, in the same way that the law of consecration is a higher law than the law of tithing, but requires us to be a whole lot less selfish. Since I expect we’ll have plenty of time and attention to spare in the hereafter, I’m thinking we’ll be able to do justice to more than one spouse. It’s something that feels right to me, though I would never practice it without the blessing of the church.
Anyway, it does seem to me that women are usually vehemently against polygamy and men are less so. I wonder if the precondition existed in everyone’s mind that it’s equally likely to be polyandry as polygyny would those odds even out, or would they remain? Is there something inherently more monogamous about women than men? Apart from our social conditioning, I don’t really think so.
I just want polymotorcycly….
I’ll be very disappointed if it isn’t so, that day when I’ll posses a perfect eternal ‘male’ body.
We have such interesting ideas today of what makes a “perfect” (i.e. “perfectly attractive”) body! Brigham Young, however, said that those “perfect bodies” in the Celestial Kingdom will be “all shapes and sizes!” In my believing days, I used to chuckle at the idea of some anorexic supermodel being resurrected, only to find that her “perfect” body weighs twice what she allowed herself to weigh in mortality. 😉
Seriously though….
It seems that Mormon/LDS rhetoric has been pretty consistent in suggesting that there will be more “exaltable” women than men. This sort of talk has been even more explicit in the last 20 years or so, to the point that I’ve half-jokingly reminded people that a pair of ovaries isn’t the equivalent of the Urim and Thummim.
If men in the LDS church are repeatedly taught that they’ll be outnumbered, and the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is inherently composed of heterosexually-married persons, how can these men not believe they’ll be polygamous, out of sheer necessity?
You did not give an option for strictly monogamous. I think this shows a slant in your Mormon thinking, Hawkgirrrl.
Margaret and Paul Toscano suggested and I like the idea that we are two halvs of one whole, and I think that gay and lesbians have a same gendered half. So, if we are really two halves of one whole, then there is NO polygamy, and you didn’t give that option at all if there is going to be any form of sexual reproduction, even if that reproduction is not through intercourse. Sorry, but some men are going to have to give up women they are thinking they are sealed to, because I think it is going to be one to one.
As far as the ratio of righteous women to righteous men, more male babies die before reaching the age of eight. The rate at birth is more males at about 105/95 and the rate at the reproductive years is more females, by about 101/99. Sorry guys, but males are a bit more fragile and don’t survive as well. So, if all the male babies that die make it into the CK automaticaly, then that is going to take up some of the “extra” women because women are more spiritual.
You already have my answer (really, my guess) in the post itself, although I like the distinction between “intimate” and “sexual”. Ultimately, however, I look at all of the forms of marriage that have been practiced in the Church and end up with, “I have no idea.”
I just believe I will end up as half of an eternal whole with my wife – but I also believe in a “creative council of the gods” model that has nothing to do with sexual relationships. For me, that model pretty much erases ALL the issues surrounding the various forms of marriage arrangement and is totally consistent with the totality of our canon – AND it makes mortal sexual orientation pretty much meaningless from an eternal perspective. It also does absolutely no harm to our current core doctrine in any way, as it is the creation of spirit children (not sexual activity) that is the heart of that doctrine. Sure, it goes against nearly all members’ assumptions, but it doesn’t harm the actual doctrine in any way.
I was hoping for an option in the poll of “Don’t Know, Do Care.”
Perhaps males have an easier time conceiving of multiple partners because evolutionarily, their relationship and sexuality triggers favor wide dissemination of their genetic material to ensure continuation of the species, whereas females favor nurturing, protective environments for their offspring and try to choose a mate who will provide the greatest chance for her babies to safely reach maturity. In this context, there are essentially two competing strategies working together to provide the best chances for survival. Of course, being more or less hardwired through evolutionary genetics this way doesn’t force us into roles and attitudes about relationships and sexuality, but it certainly influences many, and favors polygyny or serial monogamy over polyandry or strict monogamy.
One thing I find extremely interesting is that inasmuch as I know that neither polygyny nor polyandry would never work in my own relationship with my wife, as a man I have to admit that there is a natural urge to continue to look around for potential mates. It doesn’t take much to remind myself that what I have already is enough for me, and that the inevitable negative impact of looking and acting elsewhere is so great that it prevents me from realistically considering being unfaithful. Nevertheless, its remarkable that I have to rationally convince myself to think and act strictly monogamously every time an attractive female walks my way and the “natural man” reacts instinctively.
SteveS, I’m not sure if this is what you are referring to, but women are every bit as promiscuous as men are, given the opportunity. It is a (hopefully dying) myth that men look around more than women do. As more women enter the workforce and increase their economic power, their rates of affairs increase.
I have stated this elsewhere but will repeat it here. Polygamy looks good to alpha males who would get multiple desirable spouses. It sucks for non-alpha males who might be left with nobody. It also sucks for alpha females who might have to share their desirable spouse with somebody else. But for non-alpha females, it increases the probability of finding a spouse among the non-alpha males or even, if one is willing to share, among the alpha males.
I suspect that both alpha males and alpha females are overrepresented in the chattering classes of the bloggernacle–hence the apparent gender divide. If the silent masses were surveyed confidentially, I suspect the gender gap would appear much narrower.
Author
Tatiana – “Is there something inherently more monogamous about women than men? Apart from our social conditioning, I don’t really think so.” Studies show that men have evolved with a desire to ‘spread their seed’ whereas women have evolved to ‘ensnare a good provider.’ I suppose this explains the phenomenon of baby mamas.
Nick – “If men in the LDS church are repeatedly taught that they’ll be outnumbered, and the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is inherently composed of heterosexually-married persons, how can these men not believe they’ll be polygamous, out of sheer necessity?” You may recall my post last year in which I (attempted to, at least,) debunk this notion. But I also think this observation begs the chicken and egg question – was the rhetoric about women being inherently more righteous in fact created to justify polygamy (among other things it seems to justify)? If so, that’s ironic – to justify polygamy we created a myth about superior female righteousness, and now that we don’t practice polygamy, we still think it will be an eventual necessity due to the myth we created to justify it in the first place. Talk about sniffing your own fragrance!
Alas – “You did not give an option for strictly monogamous. I think this shows a slant in your Mormon thinking, Hawkgirrrl.” That was a total oversight since it’s actually my answer to the survey. So I kind of blew my poll. Oopsie! It’s fixed now. Personally, I think that there will be some sort of Celestial Singles Ward for the decoupled polygs to meet and mingle. I realize that runs counter to what the NT says about “they neither marry nor are given in marriage,” but still, it just seems right to me, and for all I know that statement in the NT was inserted by a celibate priest. The Toscanos are really just talking about the old mythology of an androgynous being split in half, seeking its other half. But I prefer to think of men and women as both complete and whole without another, since each of us have both ‘male’ and ‘female’ traits (if you consider the symbolic value of sexual organs as the basis for calling something a ‘male’ or ‘female’ trait).
I voted “no sexual relations” on the basis that I think the argument for viviparous spirit birth is weak, especially in its large cardinality variety. I believe that “continuation of seeds” will be by a combination of descendancy and adoption, and that virtually all the theological evidence tends in that direction including the term itself.
Dear Hawkgrrrl,
The whole concept of eternal families is so far beyond my comprehension…
1) I hear from my adult son (and my grandson) about once a month, and see them about once a year. And they only live about 50 miles away. How often will I hear from them during the eternities? Once every 99 vigintillion years? Or will the thoughts of all my ancestors and descendants be my “constant companion”?
2) What does it mean to be “as God is”? How does one deal with omniscience and omnipotence? How does God spend his time? Does he have to, in his infinite omniscience, watch every one of the 200,000 inane videos posted to YouTube every day? What does he do on his day off? When he rested on the seventh day, after creating the entire universe, what did he do with all that spare time? I mean, if he was leaving the ENTIRE UNIVERSE alone?
3) Living in a society of omniscient beings, how do you get any privacy with your spouse? Is the creation and population of worlds really a personal project between husband and wife, or is everything done by an infinite committee?
4) It’s pretty clear from the Book of Mormon that God considers polygamy is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, given the relative equality of male and female human beings in the world, (51% male and 49% female at birth, 49% male and 51% female by age one. Note that right from the get-go you have a substantial population of unmarried males going straight to the celestial kingdom) it is obvious that not everyone can practice polygamy. This is, in fact, the practical reason that polygamy is generally associated with unusually young wives: it doesn’t take long for even a small percentage of polygamous males to exhaust the supply of available women in their generation.
5) Women are from Kolob. Men are from Oliblish.
What! The only reason I joined the church was because of that Ed Decker cartoon where God has all those hot blonde chicks hanging all over him! Are you telling me I don’t get that in the next life!
I have a (female, married) friend who is very positive on the idea of classically-patriarchal polygamy. I remember one group conversation in the hallway at a church function. Someone mentioned polygamy, and she said, “oh, that would be *great*! Can you imagine the sisterhood? the social aspects? the help you’d get with the eternal family? Having that the occasional attention of my husband, and somewhere I could send him when I want to be left alone? that would be great.”
As you might expect, she got a half-dozen evil-eyes from the other ladies in the group, and that ended the conversation. She learned her lesson, and stays perfectly silent during “eternal marriage” lessons when someone (inevitably) brings up polygamy.
I’ll tell her to stand in line for her teeth-kicking.
Author
“I’ll tell her to stand in line for her teeth-kicking.” So noted. Although I was really just picturing kicking in men’s teeth. Not women who are into it. I guess it would be sexist to only kick in the men’s teeth.
“I guess it would be sexist to only kick in the men’s teeth.”
Perhaps, but it is socially acceptable sexism. 🙂
Interesting post. My thoughts:
1. I’m descended from polygamists, so it was something that was discussed openly and freely among extended family members when I was growing up. So I don’t freak out at the prospect of polygamy the way many do.
2. I’m quite confident that there will never be polygamy again in this life, no matter what happens to the laws. There’s no way in hell the church is going back there.
3. I’m fairly agnostic on whether there will be polygamy in the hereafter, whether of the polygyny or polyandry varieties. I guess I’m of the school that God will sort it all out.
4. I do believe there will be some sort of sexual intimacy in heaven; if not, how is it heaven, exactly?
5. When Eugene England published his Dialogue article proposing that marriage in the eternities is monogamous, it was a radical piece at the time, but I predicted that eventually it would become the mainstream view. I don’t think we’re there yet, but we’re definitely on the way to my prophecy being realized.
I probably don’t have much credibility on this issue, but for what it’s worth, I think polygamy was a vile and disgusting “doctrine” when it was introduced into the church, and I think it remains every bit the same today, regardless of the context. And for the record, even when I was a 100% active, fully believing member, the idea of ever taking another wife repulsed me.
Author
“When Eugene England published his Dialogue article proposing that marriage in the eternities is monogamous, it was a radical piece at the time, but I predicted that eventually it would become the mainstream view.” I read that piece, and one of the things that he pointed out was that a viewpoint that celestial polygamy was the inevitable outcome resulted in a lack of intimacy in marriage, a “bracing oneself” for the prospect of sharing and being shared, of giving less of ourselves in our marriages because the marital relationship came second to something else – selflessness or children or Godliness or whatever. So, a belief in eternal monogamy provides a much more engaging paradigm for our earthly marriages.
Likewise, it seems to me that spouses who would ditch their spouse over differences in levels of belief are equally divested in those relationships. Rather than investing in those real-life relationships they’ve entered, they figure it’s not worth the investment because it won’t be together in the eternities anyway, so why bother. That sounds morally off to me.
The thing I dislike about the idea that there will be no polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom is the way it denigrates second (and subsequent) marriages. To me it seems to be saying that second sealings are meaningless, that they’re not real sealings, because they don’t actually seal anything. It seems to reduce all those plural wives in 19th-century polygyny — and indeed wives today who are sealed to widowers who are already sealed to a deceased wife — to mere concubines. They’re not “real” wives, anyway. And that’s not cool, IMO.
Polygamy is a funny thing. When the LDS church did it, it was inspired. When FLDS or anyone else does it today, it is vile and evil. Give me a break. It is the same now as it was then. And think of all the fine doctrines that have come up due to polygamy: women are better than men, more women will be in heaven than men, and on and on and on. Women are no better or worse than men. Give me a break.
Sorry, I only meant to say give me a break once.
Adam and Eve. That makes sense.
One man and one woman (as stated in the proclamation to the world). That makes sense.
Polygamy makes no sense. At all. And the arguments that one could make to show it makes sense (more women than men, better to share a husband than have no husband at all, etc.), do not appear to me to be the way it was practiced in the early days of the church and those reasons make no sense in heaven. Unless you fall for the old, women are so much better than men that heaven will be full of women and have hardly any men. This I find to be absolute nonsense. If that really is true, then the “test” of living on earth is clearly flawed if women have a better chance of making it based on their inherent attributes.
The only place polygamy makes sense is in the godless realm of survival of the fittest. Evolution. The big strong lion mates with as many lionesses as he can. Being human and using reason, perhaps there is a better way?
Hawkgirl,
Wake up and smell your theology. Polygamy is an everlasting principle necessary to raise ‘dem spirit babies.
Doesn’t sound like heaven to me… I have enough trouble keeping one woman happy… 🙂
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/ldsleadersbelievepolygamyinheaven.htm
BTW… According to the bible there won’t even be marriage in heaven… We will be like angels… Sounds a lot better than endless sex to me, and I’m a man.
I’ve got to add one other thing…
Among other reasons… My wife left Mormonism because she couldn’t grasp polygamy in the afterlife (and eternal families). If we all get our own families sealed to us, but we someday hope to have our own planet to populate… Who stays with who? For example… If I’m sealed to my kids, and I’m sealed to my grandpa… who do I stay sealed with? Kinda makes my head spin…
I have never felt like polygamy was a correct principle. (I have to be careful at church, in my ward my husband and I are in the minority on this) I choose to believe that in time our leaders will also come to that conclusion. It was wrong when JS did it, and it is wrong when the FLDS do it IMHO.
Only the well off or those who worked full time for the Church, so most Mormons did not, and did not want to. My Husband’s grandfather’s father’s stock comment on the better off Polygamists, who by this time often had indoor plumbing, was “Never trust a man who would sh– in his own house. He died picking up winter coal on the railroad tracks. So there will be Mormons who have various gut reactions to polygamy.
I would not seek a temple divorce from my former husband. What my mother believed was that during the Last Judgment
it would be decided what was most fair. Some women divorce their first because they were battered by the first.
If this were my situation I would get a temple divorce. As to the three men I have loved in my life, if possible,
I’m sure he would allow me to be with the one I love the most, and no human knows that but, perhaps, me.
Hawkgrrl, I think if you rigorously examine such studies (that purport to show men and women following these strict biological roles), you’ll find that they’re not any of them well-designed to remove our societal biases. There’s a lot of pop evolutionary psychology along these lines that’s scientifically void of content. I reject the hypothesis that biology causes men to be polygamous and women monogamous. It’s simply not borne out in the data.
Hawkgirll, I heard that there are going to be many more women in the Celestial Kingdom than men. That being said, we also know there is no progression for man without a woman or woman without a man. I have also read that if this is the case (single women and single men), in the celestial become celestial angels. Soooo if all you want is to be a celestial messenger with no “worlds without ends” or no progression… Truth is if God came to you saying, marry this man with 14 wives and he didn’t translate well or “he would be ugly as sin if there was sin here” I am sure you would do it. If not I pretty sure you wouldn’t find yourself in the Celestial Kingdom.
Hey Y’all, can I throw in a “ringer” to the picture????
Being a long-time electronic magnetic field imager (photographer), with a long time interest in physics, I might like to add some factors that might play in all this PAIRING up, not only here on earth, but later on spiritually and with resurrected bodies. We ARE what we think….energy-wise. We are becoming or changing the flesh by the rate, intensity and quality of energy we expell and exude from our spirit beings.
We also are greatly influenced by a swirlling and ever-changing vortex of incoming energy from all things around us…people, nature, animals, weather, music, ad infinitum.
This complex compound of energy is EXCHANGED and responded to by our mates…..attraction and repellation resulting.
When you add in the whole beings energy system….the mind, emotions, body AND spirit….there is a great deal of INTER ACTION and affects that are produced and result in bonding – communication – ahem ahem…SEALING together of the male and female together. We have all heard of the bonding that occurs when semen is expelled into a female, that chemical forces cause a type of connection or attachment that remains after the fact of the “act”. Think now of what happens when you factor in the exchange and combination of all that personal ENERGY !!! POW or no pow, but there is still a NEW field of energy created and in force when the two are close and interacting. There is ‘out there’ a ONE person who is in perfect or almost perfect alignment and balance with their energy quality – frequency – amount of light / truth / intelligence / AND LEVEL OF PROGRESSION / testimony…that can almost PERFECTLY MATCH the corresponding opposite sex. IT TAKES AN OPPOSITE SEX partner to have a PERFECT combination to COMPLETE THE WHOLE compound of a PAIR. That is why gas partnershhips are faulty and missing THE most important bonding and matching part in the search for COUPLE-ship. Love cannot and will never make up the difference. IT is PURE ENERGY and frequency exchange that completes each coupling and all science laws, all mathematical laws, all eternal laws support that fact. No room here to fully explain. I have NO idea if there is more than one perfect combination or match in females in order to make up a polygamous matching later on, I have been blessed to fine ONE only so far for me. But I do know even God is bound by eternal law. The whole universe is bound by it’s parameters. We can reason, desire, hope, and push all we want, but ‘da facts are da facts’ nevertheless.
Even Parley P. gave precedence to these things in “Science the Key to Theology”. There is MUCH yet to be revealed.
Love to all !
Sorry, my comment has mispelling…GAS partnership (could be funny..(faulty)…should have been GAY.
My cents, Don’t know, don’t care.
I have enough trouble trying to deal with this life and my family to worry about what actually goes on in the next life. I am just trying to get there someday. Acting as I believe God wants me to act in this life, at this time, is the most important principle, IMO.
Polygamy is not part of that equation.
My wife has a couple times turned to me and said, “So and So would make a good second wife”. Maybe that means she needs her teeth kicked in, not sure. However, I tend to lean to the side of polygyny. I think it will be practiced by some and not all. I am extremely happy with my current wife and have a hard enough time pleasing her I surely do not desire another. And as Jeff commented, it has no impact on the way I currently live my life and tends to be a “do the pearly gates swing or slide” question for me. It doesn’t really matter as long as they open for me.
It doesn’t matter what anybody says, or what anybody speculates. Nobody can predict what the Lord will reveal, or what he will command. The question is, whether we will all be willing to obey when he does, if he does. To ass-u-me makes an a** out of U and Me. All males with their natural man feelings may be disappointed. But all militant females that desire to kick their males in the teeth for their natural man feelings (that they can’t help but can only suppress, i.e. that’s why their called “natural”) may also be disappointed and may have to inflict violence after all.
Author
Joe Bob Dude – I’ll own the militant feminist crack if you’ll own being a pervy horndog (rather than this watery “natural man” business). Or we could both agree that it’s perfectly natural for a woman to feel that polygyny is disadvantageous to women, just as it’s perfectly natural for a heterosexual man to sexually desire as many reasonably attractive women as will have him.
Hawkgrrl, I can already see that I’m not welcome here. That was very low and insensitive as to the fact that some men have to constantly fight every day extremely hard and with much anguish to suppress what they are naturally. If you have no charity or understanding for that fact, then you should go say the same thing to a homosexual who has a particular kind of anguish and can have none of what they are naturally. Go ahead. Tell a homosexual that their feelings are invalid and that they are just a horndog because of their anguish and what they go through. Do it. See how far that flies.
#33:
Being a long-time electronic magnetic field imager (photographer), with a long time interest in physics, I might like to add some factors that might play in all this PAIRING up, not only here on earth, but later on spiritually and with resurrected bodies.
I’m not sure I understand how photography, and an “interest in” physics qualifies one as an expert on human relations or companionship. Can you expound on this a bit, Sharon?
We ARE what we think….energy-wise. We are becoming or changing the flesh by the rate, intensity and quality of energy we expell and exude from our spirit beings.
To be honest, this sounds very much like “New Age” hocus-pocus to me. Coupled with your statement that you image “electronic magnetic fields” gives me the impression that you may be one of those individuals who attempt to photograph human “auras.” Am I correct in this?
IT TAKES AN OPPOSITE SEX partner to have a PERFECT combination to COMPLETE THE WHOLE compound of a PAIR.
I don’t doubt that this is true for heterosexual persons, Sharon. Can you please explain to us why you believe the above to be true for those who are emotionally, romantically, and sexually attracted to persons of the SAME sex? What observations have you personally made of same-sex partners, in order to reach your conclusions?
That is why gas [sic] partnershhips are faulty and missing THE most important bonding and matching part in the search for COUPLE-ship. Love cannot and will never make up the difference. IT is PURE ENERGY and frequency exchange that completes each coupling and all science laws, all mathematical laws, all eternal laws support that fact. No room here to fully explain.
I think you probably need to take that “room to explain,” Sharon. Do you really claim to understand “all” scientific, mathematical, and eternal laws? Personally, I think that seems to be a rather bold claim, perhaps only rightfully made by deity. You haven’t identified what you consider “THE most important bonding and matching part in the search for COUPLE-ship,” let alone why you believe that same-sex couples are “faulty and missing” this magical elixer. Honestly, your words really are sounding very “New Age,” without much traceable substance.
Joe Bob Dude, take it easy, man. I don’t think calling a guy a “horndog” who says he has a hard time controlling his hormones is any more offensive than calling a woman “militant” who wants to kick her husband in the teeth for craving a second wife. In any event, although I’m not an administrator and can’t speak for this site, you’re undoubtedly welcome here. If you think this exchange has any unspoken meaning, I’d encourage you to go back and read any of the posts with 100+ comments, and you’ll find some SERIOUS disagreements between people who have been and remain regulars to the site. Obviously sarcasm and nuance are difficult to put across and even more difficult to pick up in this forum. At least wait until you’ve exchanged 2 or 3 nasty comments to make sure offense is intended before you give up on the site.
“At least wait until you’ve exchanged 2 or 3 nasty comments to make sure offense is intended before you give up on the site.”
LOLZ, and, sound advice.
Well, JBD, if you want to couch it in those terms, then I absolutely do disagree with you. Are you implying that men have some innate “anguish” at not being able to have sex with more than one woman, or not having the companionship of more than one woman? And if this is true, then are you saying that women don’t experience similar anguish? I think that’s patently absurd. I would agree with you as far as hormones go, but beyond that, you’re flying solo. And as a final thought, your posts seem a lot like a joke, but if they’re not then I truly hope you’re not making empty threats.
Joe, I think we are all a little confused. What exactly are you trying to say?
Author
JBD – I’ll assume you are joking. I merely equated you calling me a militant feminist with me calling you a pervy horndog. In short, I assume since you can dish it out that you can also take it.
You are certainly welcome to the site, even if you are channeling J. Golden Kimball in your last remark. Especially if you are channeling J. Golden Kimball, I should say.
Hold on everybody. Lets all honor our polygamous pioneer forbears and ancestors by maintaining reverence for the subject in question. 😉
cough…has anyone seen Ray?
Ok then. Thanks for clearing it up.
Just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they are jerks who don’t care about anyone but themselves and need to go to hell. Wait…is this my wife?
JBD, in all seriousness, if you have thoughts and feelings that we seem to be missing, you should clarify them. I would be interested to know your thoughts on an issue that you clearly feel strongly about.
“Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—”(D&C 76:34). “Hawk, you’ve become a Son of Perdition in the eyes of Aboz, et al.
This also meets the quota for scripture quotes in a post…… 🙂
#32-
I clearly don’t understand the laws of science, mathmatics, and eternity??? (Puzzled Smiley Face)
But I do like Yanni.
Dude,
Get real. If you’d come into the discussion and actually discussed your feelings (which I can quite readily understand, BTW) instead of just trolling and cursing as soon as someone disagreed with you, there’s no way your sock would have been outed. I’m anti-outing — I kept my online and offline identities entirely separate for seven very active years on internet forums — but Hawkgrrrl’s outing of you was an entirely appropriate response to your behavior on this thread.
#32- follow up:
By the way, I think that the last guy who used Christianity promote the ying/yang concept of femenism, or the “sacred femenine”, did so to make a case against the divinity of Jesus.
“But I do like Yanni.”
Dude, you have a problem…… 🙂 You will probably tell me next that you like John Tesh.
While I thought Aboz or JBD’s comments were entirely inappropriate, I do agree with him that his real name should not be posted.
Isn’t this site a place for anonymity? A place where people who don’t feel comfortable being open about certain church issues can discuss them freely?
That other one is his real name? I thought it was just a handle like “Aboz.” If that’s his real name, and he doesn’t want it used, it should be deleted.
Aboz, stop saying you people. I asked you to clarify your frustrations. You ignored me. I agreed that your real name should not be posted. And by the way, we all assumed it was just another handle until you mentioned that it was your real name.
Then stop posting comments.
Aboz, according to you your mental state and related issues are serious. This is not an appropriate forum to address those issues. I wish you the best.
Aboz, I don’t know why you said you have nothing to clarify, particularly to me, because I sincerely was curious as to what your frustrations were and if I knew what they were, I imagine I would be sympathetic. I also agree that your real name should be removed. I guess I’m trying to say I feel like you think I am out to get you when I am trying to be on your side.
Author
I have moderated all related comments. Just to put everyone’s mind at ease, all 3 of the names I mentioned were used as “handles” on previous posts. I did not reveal anything that the commenter did not previously reveal. I am not specifically aware whether one of these identities is a commenter’s actual name.
Jeff:
There is a bass solo in Live at the Acropolis that gave me a new perspective on Yanni. But, that is the only one I can speak for. He’s just new age and I was trying to relate.
Cowboy,
I first realized I was middle-aged when a friend gave me a Kitaro CD… and I liked it.
So Aboz, what do you think about polygamy in heaven?
I go away for a couple of days, and THIS happens? Yikes! 🙂 🙁
Everyone, may I trot out my mantra:
Nobody can make you respond to them in any particular way. Please exercise restraint and comment as you would have others comment to you. Please.
I just read #46. Thanks for the laugh, brjones – even if you meant it to be both serious and funny.
I demand that you remove Ray’s comment on 64 since you are now not allowing me to set the record straight.
Aboz, read the thread before you comment. We had no obligation to honor your previous demand, but that comment was edited with Ray’s full knowledge and approval before your comment posted and at the same time that your previous comment was deleted because Ray’s comment was edited.
Take a deep breath and let go, dude. You are going to give yourself a heart attack.
Just to be crystal clear:
I did not agree to editing my comment out of a feeling that it was incorrect or inappropriate in any way. I also did not do so out of a feeling that Aboz’s demands were appropriate in any way. I generally don’t like rewarding tantrums when my children throw them, so my children have learned not to throw them.
However, in the spirit of an attempted reconciliation and with Aboz’s health in mind, I am totally fine with doing whatever it takes to end this spat – including editing one of my comments.
Please, let’s let this drop and move back to what this blog is all about.
Aboz, I do want to reiterate one thing I said:
Please, take responsibility for and ownership of your health. Commenting in the Bloggernacle really does seem to ramp up your blood pressure in a scary and unhealthy way. I was totally serious when I asked you to be considerate of your health. I’m not asking you you to stop commenting here, but I am asking you to consider what doing so appears to be doing to your emotional and perhaps physical well-being. Please, take care of yourself in whatever way is best – even if that means staying away from the Bloggernacle.
Don’t worry Ray. I assure you that you will never see me again, neither with this name, nor under any other name on here. I will never risk having another conversation with any of you, after seeing what you are capable of doing to my real name without regard for anything, admitting that I am certainly capable of flying off the handle, which makes us not a good mix. Its not like in this “spirit of reconciliation” that you have apologized Hawkgrrl for what you did to my name. But I will apologize anyway and go my way. So I apologize for flying off the handle.
Wow, I missed all that, whew!!
Hawkgrrl, I am afraid that I resemble the pervy horndog comment.
Although, it appeared a common practice for Men to marry sisters, or if not common it happened. Can I just say that if Polygyny is a must can I please not marry any of my sister-in-laws? My wife is a hottie, but her sisters lack much to be desired.
Robert, I enjoyed the laugh with the last paragraph, but I’m not touching it with a ten-foot pole! 🙂
Author
RobertM – LOL!
Wow, half those comments were just bashing each other. Anyway, I would just like to say thanks for bringing up the topic. It’s something I have thought about often since I got married. I try not to though and just try to focus on the basic principles of the gospel that will ensure even getting to the celestial kingdom. 🙂 This is where faith comes in for me!
Something I’ve never understood is why do people have an issue with anyone having more than 1 husband or wife, but don’t care if that person remarries after a divorce or death. is it really any different? When it comes to death, the person still loves 2 or more people and when it comes to divorce, the person is pretty much saying “I don’t love you and I guess I never have since I don’t want to try to fix things”.
As for polyandry, most people I know have never heard of it, and I don’t understand why any woman would want to deal with more than 1 husband. I mean, men are lazy and dirty and constantly wanting sex. at least with 1 hubby and multiple wives, you don’t have to make up some excuse not to sleep with him.
Polygamy = more than one spouse. Given that the Lord wouldn’t use the wrong word when giving a revelation, this means that any gender can have more than one spouse. By the way, to have more than one wife is called polygyny.