Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

The reader wanted to know why is it fair for men to marry more women, and women to marry only one man. I believe the context of the question is that if there are more married women in the Celestial Kingdom than married men, somehow this inequality leads to unfairness.

The assumption often seems to be that women are treated unfairly, as in " Men get to marry more Women, and that's not fair." So... being married to one woman is a blessing and a good thing, and therefore being married to more than one woman must be a really good thing? I don't really buy that. When the Church practiced polygamy the extra wives were more of a burden than a blessing, judging from their journals. A second husband would not necessarily be of any benefit to a woman, and would more likely just make life more difficult for her. What was "unfair" was that the woman in polygamy didn't have her husband to herself, a sacrifice modern women don't have to make. On the other hand, she didn't have to meet the demands of a husband all by herself, and she could generally count on her sister wives to gang up and make life miserable for a husband not doing what they wanted him to do.

Now that we do not practice polygamy, are women at some kind of a disadvantage in this life? A man may have more than one woman sealed to him, which may or may not be an advantage in the next life, but means nothing in this life. A woman can also remarry. So I fail to see how there is any difference in fairness in this life, at this time.

If there are as many men who are ready and willing to have an eternal marriage as there are women, polygamy would seem a little unfair to the men in heaven, as there would be a shortage of women. But you can enjoy the Celestial Kingdom as a single person. I don't think every man wants to be married for eternity.

I have faith that it will all work out in the end.

Last time I checked, women can be sealed to more than one man. If Tao happens to stumble on this thread I believe he can substantiate the previous statement with information he gleaned from a Stake President on his mission years ago.

I believe the context of the question is that if there are more married women in the Celestial Kingdom than married men, somehow this inequality leads to unfairness.

Assuming that this is true (and I'm pretty sure God knows if it is or not) then how would it be fair for all of those righteous women who made it to the Celestial Kingdom to not have an eternal companion simply due to there not being enough worthy men? This is assuming that polygamy did not exist in the Celestial Kingdom. "I'm sorry, but your progression cannot be eternal due to the faults of other people despite your complete worthiness." This does not seem fair at all.

Now if the real issue at hand is the supposed inequality that polygamy would be practiced and polyandry would never then I can't really say much, other than God says so. If this is too hard to swallow... well, life isn't fair, or the afterlife in this case. And if the afterlife not sounding fair doesn't sound right then perhaps the current topical definition of fair should be matched more to what God considers fair instead of the frail selfish human definition of fair.

I just think that the important thing to keep in mind is that everyone who lives worthy of the blessing of an eternal marriage will have the opportunity (including people who died without learning about the gospel and who later accept it, children who die before the age of accountability, and just people who for whatever reason die without the opportunity for marriage). If there is polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, there will be nothing unfair about it. It will be a lot different than what happens in some polygamist groups today where young men are basically kicked out because all the women are already taken. God isn't going to say to a 15 year old boy who died in a car accident, "Well, you lived a worthy life, and I'd really like to give you an opportunity to find a wife, but these other guys who got here first have married all the women, so I guess you're going to have to be a servant for all of eternity." I don't know how it will all get worked out, but I know that it will.

I've heard the argument so many times that there are "more righteous women than men, so there needs to be polygamy so that the women can get married." I don't really buy that. For one thing, supposedly infant mortality rates are slightly higher for boys than girls (or so I've heard), and babies who die go to the Celestial Kingdom, where, I assume from everything I know about the Gospel, they will one day have the opportunity to get married. And think of all the young men in the history of the world who have died in wars. Many of them probably weren't married either, and I'm sure at least some of them will accept the Gospel. I think the numbers will be much more even than some people think.

It also seems like only a small fraction of men are married to more than one women (including the Old Testament Patriarchs, the early Church leaders, and men today who end up being sealed to more than one women). I don't think these men are in the majority. At least among the people I know, very few men in the Church whose first wives die end up getting remarried and sealed to another women.

I really don't think polygamy is something anyone needs to stress out about. God isn't going to deny anyone any opportunities that they are worthy of, at least not for something as important as eternal marriage.

The BYU 100 hour Board disagreed with me (Cuddles) who asked this question #52904. However, here in this forum, more people seem to be of like mind. I thought I would give the most recent back-and-forth dialog between me and the 100 hour board, some of the statistics, and quotations, web addresses. I just wanted to say I think the discussion is healthy, but I also agree with NerdGirl that we shouldn't stress out about it. The very last of the responses below is the lattest:

The Question of Plural Marriage and Fairness, Equality?
http://theboard.byu.edu/index.php

QDear 100 Hour Board,
Before I joined the LDS Church many years ago (1973), I had 2 issues that I was uncomfortable with: (1.) Blacks not holding the Priesthood, (2.) Plural Marriage. I joined the church after 1978 comforting (to some degree) my position about blacks. I also felt that Plural Marriage was not practiced anymore, and not a necessity to enter into the celestial kingdom. I felt that the Lord would help me to understand, if this principle of the Gospel were ever re-instituted. So I joined the church having a testimony of Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon, and accepted the other principles of the gospel I was not comfortable with, ON FAITH!
Years later, my French Girlfriend (2000) had an issue with us getting married in the Temple because of the History of Plural Marriage in the church (Yes, she was an RM, go figure). French RM felt that this made women not equal with men, or a possession, chattel of men by participating in Plural Marriage. French RM therefore did NOT want a Temple Marriage, or anything to do with the Temple.
As I have explained, this was a difficult subject for me, but I argued that without the new and everlasting covenant of Eternal marriage she would become as the angels, a servant of the most high. Whereas, if she participated, and lived by celestial laws, she would be resurrected as a Queen, Priestess, & Goddess in Father in Heavens Highest Degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. And this was not chattel!
French RM felt, no matter how you cut the cards, Men get to marry more Women, and that's not fair! I responded, fairness, equality, are we asking the right questions? Men and Women are not supposed to be equal in the sense of being the same, no more than you could say a left shoe was the same (or equal) with the right. Imagine a person trying to walk with 2 left shoes? Awkward at best, don’t you think? The shoe's should work together as a pair, a team, each with different responsibilities. In marriage, we are 2 halves of 1 whole, we have different purposes, different stewardships. The Husband to Preside, Protect, & Provide for the family, and the Wife to Nurture & Care for the children (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, SLC, 23 Sep 1995). This is not equal (as-in the same), this is of course different. This is 2 people dividing up the responsibilities of marriage, and working together as a team. This is not 2 people competing with each other. For example, if both worked, then who would take care of the children? Child care workers? Strangers? Sadly, none of my answers would satisfy her. So I went to talk to the President of my Local Temple on this subject. I also fasted, prayed, and studied about the matter. I kept asking myself the same question, over and over, why! I then came to this conclusion:
If there were an equal number of men & women in the Celestial Kingdom then Plural Marriage would frustrate the Lords plan of salvation and eternal life. This because not all would be able to participate, if some men were marrying more than their share of women. If there were more righteous men than women in the celestial kingdom then Plural Marriage again, would frustrate the Lords Plan of Salvation.
However, there is a 3rd possibility. What if there are more righteous women, living the Celestial law, than men here on Earth? And since the Lord has promised ALL will have opportunity to participate in Eternal Marriage (DC 132:3 is Law and must obey, 1 Ne 3:7 No commandment given, unless a way is prepared). Therefore, if there are more women in the celestial kingdom, this because of free agency. And also because of men’s natural tendency to be more violent (e.g. Men more aggressive, hunter, gatherer vs. women’s tendency to nurture, and be less violent). Under these circumstances, Plural Marriage would be the only solution for ALL of the women to receive the FULL MEASURE OF THIER CREATION, and become Queens, Priestesses, and Goddesses in Father in Heavens Celestial Kingdom. So I checked The U.S. Department of Justice Statistics that showed men were 6 times more likely to be imprisoned than women, see below:

(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm).

“Lifetime likelihood of going to State or Federal prison
• If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime.
• Lifetime chances of a person going to prison are higher for
-- men (11.3%) than for women (1.8%).”

The above statistic supports my theory. What do you think? If women understood that it was there own tendency for obedience to the gospel, greater than men, that this seeming unfair situation has occurred. Women have to share the few righteous men who make it to the Celestial Kingdom, in order for ALL to participate in the new and Everlasting covenant of Eternal marriage as promised by God. If the ratio is similar to the above statistic, then 84% women, and 16% men would occupy the Celestial Kingdom. Let’s hope that the celestial percentage is better than that listed above. A thorough answer to this question, in all its avenues & directions, would be sincerely appreciated.

With love,
Cuddles.

ADear Cuddles~

This is not an uncommon theory, and I begrudgingly accept that it's a possibility, but I really really doubt it's the case. I think some fallacious assumptions that lead to people thinking this way are:

1. That there's a magical moral line drawn in space, and everyone above the line is "righteous" and everyone below the line is "unrighteous." I readily accept that some people will go to the Celestial Kingdom and be eternally married, and some people will not, but I strongly suspect that the process isn't as simple as we usually think.

2. That we can judge anyone else's level of "righteousness" ever. Under any circumstances. The fact is that we don't know what other people's situations are, what motivations or extenuating circumstances they might be under, or frankly anything. There is only one person whose righteousness I can reliably judge, and that person is me. I'm an extremist when it comes to this view. (Before people flame me to death, yes you can pass interim judgments on people when selecting whom you date and bishops can act as Judges etc. etc., but not even bishops have the final say on who goes to the Celestial Kingdom.)

3. I reject point-blank the notion that women are inherently more righteous than men, and vice-versa. I do that on principle, though. The Hunter/Aggressive instinct is provably stronger in men, but I don't believe we should remove one modicum of their accountability because of it. Women are not without their vices.

Now I want to address what I see as the real issue, which is the question you didn't ask:

Why are you marrying this girl? I mean, seriously, if she's an RM, she knows the Church doesn't objectify women, and if she's been through the temple endowment ceremony, she's seen that women are given a place of great prominence in the Kingdom of God (as you pointed out). I strongly suspect there's something else going on in French RM's life that is making her squeamish about a temple marriage, and that she's using the tired (and nonsensical) sexism line as an excuse.

I want to ask you as gently as an anonymous Internet writer possibly can: Is this girl really worth it?

~Hobbes


QDear 100 Hour Board,

Regarding Board Question #52838:

The Question was why is it fair for Men to marry more women, and women to only marry one man in the context of DC132, the New and Everlasting Covenant of Eternal Marriage? Even today, if a man outlives his first wife of an Eternal Marriage Covenant, then he can marry a 2nd wife, if she is NOT sealed to anyone else, and living by Temple standards. Then in the Resurrection (if all live by the Celestial Laws) all 3 of them will be together, the man & his 2 wives. This happened to a friend of mine whose wife died of cancer at a young age. How does the Lord justify Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David, and Solomon, [Joseph Smith, Brigham Young & others] as touching the principle and doctrine of having many wives, and concubines.

Hobbes commented:"...there's no magical line drawn in space ... that we can judge anyone else's level of "righteousness", ... and that [Hobbes] rejects point-blank the notion that women are inherently more righteous than men..."

Well, Hobbes did not address the question of WHY? So I will ask it again. Hobbes rejects the conclusion, but offer's no General Authority quote from a speech, or statistic listed online or anywhere. Hobbes statement that we cannot judge anyone INDIVIDUALLY for certainty of worthiness to the Celestial Kingdom, I agree, but that is not what I said, and she is arguing a different point.
This also does not change the math, nor refute the statistic that there are 6 times as many men in United States prison than women. And this does not address the conclusion, that if there are an equal number of men & women (in general) in the celestial kingdom, or more men than women in the celestial kingdom, that the Lords Plan of Salvation (Plan of Redemption) would be frustrated. God has promised ALL who read DC 132 that it is law and a commandment unto them DC 132:3, and the prophet Nephi has taught that any commandment given, that there is a way prepared (1 Ne 3:7), and Alma and Mormon have both taught about Gods Plan of Redemption, and that if God is not just, or does not keep his word, that he would cease to be God, Alma 42:13,22,25 and Morm 9:15,19.
So does anyone want to address the question of Fairness, or Equality with regard to the plurality of wives, and DC 132, the New & Everlasting Covenant of Eternal Marriage? Is Plural marriage the solution to the inherent tendencies of Men to be more violent (hunter, gatherer types) than women who tend to be less violent, or more nurturing. If the below United States Prison statistic was similar to the Celestial Kingdom there would be 84% women, and 16% men. I hope the percentage is better, I (like Hobbes) want it to be equal, but all of the data points in a different direction. I need more than just a feeling, to answer this question logically.
To directly answer Hobbes question (which is off-point) Is French RM worth it? That was the year 2000, and I have moved on, but the question French RM raised remains unanswered. I appreciate the time that caring people at The Board spend trying to help others. I have recently run into a few investigators that have touched on this subject again, and thought that I and others could benefit from some research, and insight on this issue. This is not about me & my love life. This question is about our Religion, and how we explain our conduct, and the conduct of General Authorities in the 1800's. This question has got to be the Number One concern People have, before joining our church. These are my thoughts, please share with me yours.
Sincerely, Cuddles.

Show/Hide Responses


ACuddles-

You ask, "Is it fair?" I'll tell you right now that no, it's probably not fair, but that doesn't matter. It's the way God has decided to do things, and he does not have to justify himself to you or to anyone else. To ask for an explanation of why God does things from a bunch of college students and college graduates, even if you do include statistics, is foolish. You ought to be asking God, because he can give you a far better answer than us. Anything we say is speculation, and if you take the speculation we offer and say it's not good enough, why should we feel like answering again?

I will say, however, that God expects us to strive for perfection, and I doubt that he would expect so little of us as to put in place a commandment that covers for us if we don't. Therefore, I think your theory is bogus.

That's my thought.

- Cuddlefish

ADear Cuddles,

I'll add a strong second to everything Cuddlefish has said (especially the second paragraph) and I'll add that using one statistic that already correlates with your theory is not good evidence. Correlation is not causation. Not in any form of science, and definitely not pertaining to the things of God. Also, it's a statistic that only applies to the United States, not the entire realm of humanity. You don't know whether or not the correlation is caused by societal factors in the United States rather than inherent qualities of mankind.

We can't explain to you how it's fair. I really don't think it is. But it is what it is. I'd recommend a little of Joseph Smith's advice, that whatever God requires is right. We know that it's an important enough principle that it had to be reinstated for at least a time as part of the Restoration. Beyond that, the reasons are left to God.

-habiba

ADear Cuddles,

When the Lord has discussed the practice of plural marriage, he has never addressed this. It's true that there are more female members of the Church in the United States (56% female), but simply looking at the United States is a bit myopic for a worldwide church, right? Church demographics generally coincide with national gender ratios (frequently slightly more women than men) but, in contrast, the majority of saints in Africa are male. (See Figure 11 here.)

What does this tell us about the demographics of the Celestial Kingdom? Not a lot. Actually, more men are born into this world than women (1.05:1) though the ratio of living men to women is much closer due to a longer life expectancy (1.013:1). We know the Lord gives us all an equal chance in this life, regardless of gender, and so I personally expect men and women to be fairly equally represented in the Celestial Kingdom, but the Lord has never commented on this. Additionally, though this is uncommon, there have been instances of women being sealed to more than one man (see Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling), so we can't really be sure how things will be worked out.

We do know that the Lord prefers monogamy, and that polygamy is the exception rather than the rule. And, in fact, the Lord's stated justification for occasional polygamy has nothing to do with evening out demographic anomalies: "Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none ... For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2: 27, 30).

Love,
Waldorf and Sauron


For United States 56% Female Statistic click on below website, Select DEMOGRAPHICS, and then MORMON, then look at the 3rd chart from the top, GENDER COMPOSITES OF MORMONS. There are less than 0.1923% of the Church Membership in Africa. This means the one continent of Africa where there are more Males than Females is not statistically significant, since all of the other countries (99.8077%) list more Females as members.
http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits





As can be seen above Waldorf and Sauron’s sited graph shows 120 Males to 100 females in Africa in 1990. However, what they did not say is that the ratio of Females is higher in S. Pacific, Utah, US West, US East, Canada, Asia, Mex.-C.Am., S.America, and Europe.

http://www.allaboutmormons.com/number_of_mormons.php

Number of Mormons
• Worldwide, there are over 13 million Mormons, nearly the same as the number of Jews.
• In the United States the LDS Church is the 4th largest individual denomination with over 5.5 million members, a population about equal to the number of Muslims.
• Only 12% of all Mormons live in Utah. Most Mormons do not live in North America.
• Aside from the United States, other regions with significant numbers of Mormons include Mexico and Asia (1 million members each), South America (3 million members), and Central America and Europe (about half a million each). The rapid growth the Church has been experiencing in Africa, where the number of Mormons already passes a quarter of a million, is particularly exciting [0.1923% of Church Population].
• After Catholics, the LDS Church is the largest religion by number in ten U.S. states.
Church Almanac 2006.


I believe the debate is healthy. As to the question: "Is Plural marriage fair?" I believe it would be MORE unfair to deny the Sisters the opportunity to participate in Eternal Marriage as promised by the Lord through his prophet Nephi (1 Ne 3:7), and as commanded by the Lord for all who read about Eternal Marriage and plurality of wives, DC 132:3, 38.
I appreciate the Board answering my question this first time, the other was about my love life, which was off-point and does not count. The statistic that Waldorf and Sauron found where there are more members Male than Female in Africa is NOT statistically significant since they represent only (0.19%) of the population of the Church (250,000/13,000,000). And where on that same graph that Waldorf and Sauron found, it shows that (98.8%) of the population of the church has more Females than Male. This statistic and chart that Waldorf and Sauron found, overwhelmingly supports my hypothesis that DC 132 IS A SOLUTION to what Waldorf and Sauron called "Demographic Anomalies", or as I call it, the sisters need to share the few Male Members who are in the Celestial Kingdom, so that they can fulfill the full measure of their creation, and become Goddesses, Priestesses, and Queens in the Highest Degree of Glory in Father's Kingdom. Cuddlefish, Habiba, and Waldorf and Sauron, have not offered a theory that explains how it could be otherwise.
It is simple math!! How can it be "Bogus" as Cuddlefish stated? How can he explain the Math: If there are an equal number of men and women, and if even for a small period of time Plural Marriage were instituted (which is not the case), then there would not be sufficient numbers of women to marry these men, as has been promised by Nephi that a way would be prepared (1 Ne 3:7). So for Plural marriage to make sense, for God to be true, just, and fair, there must be more women than men in the celestial kingdom. Otherwise God would cease to be God, as stated by Alma, and Mormon, (Alma 42:13,22,25 and Morm 9:15,19). How can Cuddlefish or anyone explain otherwise, if the ratio's were equal, or worse yet, if there were more Men in the Celestial Kingdom the Women?
To put it simply, if we imagine a game of musical chairs in the Celestial Kingdom, where God has promised ALL a chair to sit on (Eternal Marriage), and there are 10 brothers sitting on 10 chairs, and 12 sisters circling the chairs waiting for the music to stop (Judgment Day over) and sit on one of these brethren's lap. Then only 10 could sit, 2 would be left standing, and not participating in Eternal Marriage which is necessary to be in the Highest Degree of Glory in the Celestial Kingdom (DC 131:2)? And as we can clearly see from the charts that Waldorf and Sauron have revealed, there appear to be more Women members than Men worldwide at this time. So even if Men and Women are equal in their obedience to Celestial laws, then there would still be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom, thereby again supporting my theory. But all of the statistics that I have been able to gather, both in the United States and Worldwide point to Men being more violent, and less obedient to the Celestial Laws than women (Note to Habiba, just google it!!) Again, supporting my theory, that the doctrine of Plural Wives is a Solution to men's less obedient nature. And since not even God can deny our free agency, the doctrine of plurality of wives becomes the best and only solution. Men who outlive their wives, can remarry in the temple today for Time and All Eternity. So in the Eternal sense of the Word, we are obeying the Laws of the Land per the Articles of Faith, and yet still participating occasionally and voluntarily in the doctrine of Plurality of wives which has existed since the beginning of time as stated by the Lord (DC 132:38)!
I agree with part of what Habiba said: "...not the entire realm of humanity", we do not have the capability of knowing the statistics of the calculated 70 billion that have been born to the Earth so far. But what we can easily surmise is that Plurality of wives is the rule, and not the exception. DC 132:38 "David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me." So as the Lord said, many others from the beginning of creation until this time sounds like the rule, and not the exception as Waldorf and Sauron have concluded. And the quotation from Jacob 2:27, 30 is the exception. This because the New & Everlasting Covenant of Eternal marriage was not in effect with Jacob at that location, and time, this because of the unrighteousness of their husbands. Does this sound like the Lord agrees with my theory, that men are inherently less obedient than women. The Lord speaks fondly of the women (fair daughters) at this time, see below. Jacob 2:31,32:
“31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.”
So during the time of Jacob 544BC to 421BC, the Husbands were not worthy of this Higher law of Eternal marriage, and so they were not offered it, as we were in 1843AD when DC 132 was made public. And there were no Temples to perform such sacred ceremonies of Eternal marriage, and plural marriage at this time when Jacob spoke. However, there are now more temples on the Earth today, than at any other time in the history of the World! This is the age of restoration, and the commandment of Plural Wives & Eternal Marriage was reinstituted, and only discontinued due to the passage of what the church felt was an unconstitutional law which deprived us of our freedom of religion or exercise of our faith according to the dictates of our own conscious. The church wanting to continue plural marriage challenged this law, until it was ruled against by the Supreme court, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States. This was not rescinded by the Lord, but became the lesser of 2 evils, for we have pledged, and have been commanded to obey the laws of the land, A of F 1:12. Below the Chart or Graph by Waldorf and Sauron does not appear, but the web address, and my comments do. And the statistic, and web address of how many members are on the African Continent are also listed below.
So if Cuddles is wrong, then how does the BYU Board explain the math? If there are an equal number of men and women, or more men than women in the Celestial kingdom, how can we all have a path prepared for us to participate in Eternal marriage as promised by God through the Prophet Nephi (1 Ne 3:7)? How can the Board explain the Musical Chairs?

Sincerely, Cuddles.

Hi Cuddles! I've heard a couple of interesting alternative theories about polygamy that I will share since people seem interested. Let me just add the disclaimer that these are completely wild speculation, and not even my own speculation, and that as far as I know they have nothing to with anything in the scriptures or anything a general authority has ever said. One of them I think makes a bit of sense, the other not so much.

Theory #1: There actually will not end up being any plural marriages in the Celestial Kingdom. Things will get re-adjusted so that the extra wives get to find a new man. Now, this is a nice way of thinking for the people who really don't like the idea of polygamy, but I just can't see this happening, especially since some women may actually be very happy in their plural marriages and it seems like God wouldn't break something like that up.

Theory #2: (This actually makes a bit of sense to me). We have no reason to believe that our Heavenly Parents are ever going to stop having children. Therefore, we need to get out of the mindset that a finite number of our spirit brothers and sisters will end up in the Celestial Kingdom (when I say Celestial Kingdom, assume I mean the highest degree). If there are an infinite number of people who end up in the Celestial Kingdom, then the perceived unevenness of the numbers of men and women goes away. There may not be an infinite number of people coming from our own Earth, but we know that there are other Earths that Heavenly Father has created, and we have no reason to think He's going to stop creating one day. This may mean that some people end up married to people from other Earths, but we don't have any reason to believe that that's not allowed. Let me remind you again that this all just speculation and other people's opinions, but that one actually makes some sense to me.

Cuddles,

You don't seem to have followed my argument, so let me be a little more explicit.

Cuddles wrote:As can be seen above Waldorf and Sauron’s sited graph shows 120 Males to 100 females in Africa in 1990. However, what they did not say is that the ratio of Females is higher in S. Pacific, Utah, US West, US East, Canada, Asia, Mex.-C.Am., S.America, and Europe.

I said that "Church demographics generally coincide with national gender ratios (frequently slightly more women than men)" and then cited Africa as an outlier exception. I'm not sure why you took my statement of the exception as the rule, especially in the same sentence where I pointed out the general rule. The African statistic shows that one gender is not inherently more churchy than the other: in different cultures, it's very possible for males to join the church more often.

The statistic that Waldorf and Sauron found where there are more members Male than Female in Africa is NOT statistically significant since they represent only (0.19%) of the population of the Church (250,000/13,000,000). And where on that same graph that Waldorf and Sauron found, it shows that (98.8%) of the population of the church has more Females than Male. This statistic and chart that Waldorf and Sauron found, overwhelmingly supports my hypothesis that DC 132 IS A SOLUTION to what Waldorf and Sauron called "Demographic Anomalies", or as I call it, the sisters need to share the few Male Members who are in the Celestial Kingdom, so that they can fulfill the full measure of their creation, and become Goddesses, Priestesses, and Queens in the Highest Degree of Glory in Father's Kingdom. Cuddlefish, Habiba, and Waldorf and Sauron, have not offered a theory that explains how it could be otherwise.

No it doesn't overwhelmingly support your hypothesis. As I said, demographics of the earthly church don't approximate the demographics of the celestial kingdom, but maybe I should be more clear as to why. First, it only describes a sliver of those who can qualify for the celestial kingdom, as we believe that many (if not most) people will accept the gospel in the afterlife. Say only 1/3 of Earth's current inhabitants accept the gospel: we'll approximate 2 billion people. The 13 million current members of the church are only a drop in the bucket - they'd make up only .65% of the celestial kingdom! And that's only right now; considering that people have been born for thousands to millions of years, most estimates of how many people have ever lived are in the 90-110 billion range. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_popu ... ever_lived) The number of members of the church right now is, quite plainly, a bad sample size. Add to that, possibly, the worlds without end, and you can see why
I think the men-to-women born ratio is more important. And I think the idea that men are inherently less righteous than women is patently false, and in direct contradiction to the plan of salvation. Dominant cultures may affect this, but I don't think it's something that we can judge. If you can get some statistics from the missionary efforts of the spirit world, then perhaps you can make a case. Otherwise, you're shooting in the dark.

As for alternate explanations, how's this: "for my thoughts are you not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord" (Isaiah 55). It's folly to say that what seems logical to you is probably God's motivation.

Or, as I mentioned before, why not accept the Lord's stated reason for authorizing plural marriages: "... if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to have more than one spouse]..."

If there are an equal number of men and women, and if even for a small period of time Plural Marriage were instituted (which is not the case), then there would not be sufficient numbers of women to marry these men, as has been promised by Nephi that a way would be prepared (1 Ne 3:7).

Plural marriage can go both ways (as mentioned before) and was practiced by only a minority of the LDS Church. In 1890, when polygamy was discontinued, the church had less than 200,000 members, which puts the number of people in polygamist households at that time at 50,000. Compared, again, to the world population over history, this statistic is less than a drop in the bucket. Polygamy is NOT the rule, the scripture you mentioned simply shows that it has been done in many dispensations. The law of eternal marriage is NOT equal to plural marriage, and its institution has not been scripturally shown to be related to worthiness. It has been, as the Lord said in Jacob, related to the Lord inciting population growth. As for a temple among the Nephites, didn't Nephi build one back in 2 Nephi?

Plural marriage was not only discontinued due to the passage of law. It was discontinued because the Lord commanded it. Wilford Woodruff said: "I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do..." Yes the Lord showed President Woodruff what would happen had he not discontinued Polygamy, but when it comes down to it, it's because the Lord, who knows all things, sees beyond our perspective, and whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts, commanded it. As President Woodruff said, "the Son of God felt disposed to have [the manifesto] presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind." (emphasis mine, quotes from the speeches of President Woodruff following OD1 in the D&C)

So, given that more men are born into the world than women, and that the Lord eventually gives us all an equal chance to hear the gospel regardless of gender (otherwise, Agency would be thwarted) how do YOU explain the math? Here's how I explain it: we don't know, but God knows and guides, and that is enough. Our perspectives are limited by place, history, and subjectivity. God has no such limits.

Love,
Sauron

Welcome to the message board, Cuddles. I think this is a more appropriate place to carry on a discussion than the 100 Hour Board itself.

You seem to have irritated a few members of the Board. What I’m having a difficult time understanding is just what are the differences of opinion. I think we mostly agree that plural marriage was instituted by the Lord at various times under particular circumstances. I don’t see anyone claiming to know for a certainty that plural marriage won’t continue into the next life. Imogen would disagree, but not the rest of us. We all agree that God is fair and just, it just isn’t clear how it all works out.

Like you, I have some problem with the question, is it fair? Women, like your French RM friend, seem to have a misunderstanding that men “get” to marry more than one wife, as though this were some kind of privilege and right, instead of a heavy responsibility and burden. And she seems to think women are somehow denied a right when the law of God does not permit two men to equally preside over her at the same time. Such a thing would cause a world of confusion and disorder.

Perhaps the problem is only in the implication you give that there will be many times more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom who desire to be married for eternity, and therefore polygamy is the only way. I have to admit that the statistic of prison inmates is rather weak, in my opinion. The legal system is geared much more to incarcerating men, then women. Punishment is not gender neutral. The sins women commit may not lead to jail time as much as the sins men commit, but that doesn’t mean that women are more righteous than men.

Plus, I don’t like the idea that those who have a celestial marriage are more righteous than those who are eternally single. To have a celestial marriage opens up more growth and possibilities than for others, but they aren’t necessarily happier or live a more fulfilling life.

I think I completely agree with NerdGirl, and mostly with Waldorf and Sauron, though I tend to think that plural marriage is the norm, and monogamy is the aberration.

medievalman wrote:Last time I checked, women can be sealed to more than one man.

"A deceased woman may be sealed to all men to whom she was legally married during her life.
However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased
before she can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life."

"A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. If she is sealed to a husband and later
divorced, she must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she
may be sealed to another man in her lifetime (see "Applying for a Cancellation of Sealing or a
Sealing Clearance" on this page)."


That's from the Church Handbook of Instructions, 1999. The rules are a little different for men.

__So what are our differences of opinions was not clearly understood by Vorpal Blade, so let us review. The question; Is Polygamy Fair? Cuddlefish said NO, and that my idea was bogus. Habiba said: “I really don’t think it is [fair].” I said that it is more fair for Men to marry plural wives in order for ALL Celestial Sisters to be able to participate in Eternal Marriage as was promised by God than the alternative which is Monogamy. And this would mean that only some sisters would be able to have an Eternal Marriage, and progress to Godhood, and sit in the lap of one of the brothers playing musical chairs in heaven (lol). And I concluded that this must mean that there are more women in the celestial kingdom than men in order for plural marriage to work. Sauron was upset that I misunderstood what she was trying to say, and that a woman can be sealed to more than one man, and my quote from a General Authority speech given back in the 90's that there are an estimated 70 billion born to this earth, where Sauron sited Wikipedia with a more current estimate of 90-110 billion people that have been born to this earth. Sauron also said that “many (if not most) will accept the gospel in the afterlife.” Vorpal Blade confirmed that a dead woman can be sealed to more than one man from the Church Handbook of Instruction, 1999. And NerdGirl had 2 out-of-the-box kind of idea's that I really appreciate being brought into our discussion. So do we agree on anything? As Vorpal Blade said:

__"I think we mostly agree that plural marriage was instituted by the Lord at various times under particular circumstances. I don’t see anyone claiming to know for a certainty that plural marriage won’t continue into the next life."

__Let me first address the issue of Plurality of Husbands after the Resurrection. As the Lord taught us in DC 132, a man can marry more than one wife, the reverse was not taught. No where in scripture or any prophets speech’s or writings does it say: "Thus saith the Lord a woman can be sealed to more than one man after the resurrection." Having done temple work for years, I asked this question of the Church Handbook of Instruction while talking with the Seattle Temple President back in 2000. The Temple President said that we seal all of the husbands after death, because we don't know which ONE of the dead woman's husbands she will choose after the resurrection. However, she will only be able to choose ONE. And then she will become part of his kingdom as he is part of his fathers kingdom, in accordance with the PATRIARCHAL ORDER all the way back to Adam, who is part of Jesus Christ’s kingdom, who is part of our Father in Heavens kingdom, “…and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” DC 76:58. But in mortal life, we can ask the woman whom she chooses, and this is why a living sister of the church can only be sealed to one man for time and eternity. If a woman wants to be married to a 2nd man in the temple while she is still yet alive, she will be married for TIME ONLY in the temple. On the other hand, because the doctrine of plural wives (in the Eternal sense) was never discontinued by the Lord, a man can be sealed to more than one wife while still yet alive, so long as he is obeying the laws of the land, and not committing bigamy. Such was the case with my friend who outlived his first wife due to cancer, and he was sealed for Time & Eternity to a 2nd wife. Let us keep in mind that the initiation of the sealing is performed in the Temple, it is validated by the Holy Spirit of Promise in order to have efficacy or force after the resurrection. See Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Page 1288, Sealing, 2nd, and 4th paragraphs: “…priesthood power given to authorized servants of the Lord to perform certain acts on earth and have them recognized (sealed) or validated in heaven (2nd paragraph).” “This is the [priesthood] authority by which “all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations … [can be] made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise [and receive] efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection of the dead (D&C 132:7)” End of 4th paragraph on page 1288 of Encyclopedia of Mormonism, words in brackets added by them. As to the Lord commanding the discontinuance of plural marriage, the Lord showed Pres. Snow that this was “the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue” OD 1, Excerpts, Para 5, because to do otherwise would have meant the church leaders being arrested, the temples and other property confiscated, and the discontinuance of the remaining temple ordinances. And so we continued to practice plural marriage only when the husband outlived his 1st wife!!

__As to the idea of the single sisters in the celestial kingdom just waiting until there are more brothers, this because the birth and death of Father in Heavens children is continuous and endless, let us think on this for a moment? See NerdGirl theory #1 below:

__“Theory #1: There actually will not end up being any plural marriages in the Celestial Kingdom. Things will get re-adjusted so that the extra wives get to find a new man. Now, this is a nice way of thinking for the people who really don't like the idea of polygamy, but I just can't see this happening, especially since some women may actually be very happy in their plural marriages and it seems like God wouldn't break something like that up.”

__Yes, I agree that God will keep all of his promises, and whatsoever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven. Now to expand on the above theory, the earth is going to become a celestial sphere, or crystal Urim and Thummim DC 130:9, and we who have been born to this earth will inherit it. Mat. 5:5, Ps. 37:22. And only those who belong to this earth will inherit it is implied, see DC 130:5. So there is a finite length of time, and therefore a finite number of spirit children who will inherit the Celestial kingdom here on this earth. For there are countless planets with Gods children, and they cannot all fit here. I am sure there are planets prepared for them, as with us. See NerdGirls Theory #2 below:

__“Theory #2: (This actually makes a bit of sense to me). We have no reason to believe that our Heavenly Parents are ever going to stop having children. Therefore, we need to get out of the mindset that a finite number of our spirit brothers and sisters will end up in the Celestial Kingdom (when I say Celestial Kingdom, assume I mean the highest degree). If there are an infinite number of people who end up in the Celestial Kingdom, then the perceived unevenness of the numbers of men and women goes away. There may not be an infinite number of people coming from our own Earth, but we know that there are other Earths that Heavenly Father has created, and we have no reason to think He's going to stop creating one day. This may mean that some people end up married to people from other Earths, but we don't have any reason to believe that that's not allowed. Let me remind you again that this all just speculation and other people's opinions, but that one actually makes some sense to me.”

__Although there is not much scripture to support this theory, it is an interesting idea! But I must stick with my original theory, that there are a finite number of children who will be born to this earth, and inherit this earth after the resurrection as I stated above. And that therefore there are only 3 possibilities, equal men & women, or more men than women, which would not work with polygamy. And the 3rd possibility, where there are more women than men living the celestial law that will inherit that kingdom, thereby causing plural marriage to be the solution to this inherent problem, and thereby fulfilling ALL of God’s promises to his celestial children, and explaining the question of WHY the Lord instituted - what on the surface may seem unfair. There are many statistics that support (but do not prove) this point of view. There are few statistics that point in a different direction. When wars are fought, they are done so by men. When murders, rape, and all manner of violence takes place, they are overwhelmingly by men. Throughout all history we read these stories, and I for one am saddened by them. As I have stated before, there are 6 times as many men in prison, than women in the United States. This supports, but does not prove my theory. Women by there nature, and physical stature have less opportunity for such sin. No, it would appear from the extensive history of the earth that we can now draw on, is that women’s sins are less violent. As Waldorf and Sauron stated there are about (1.013:1) or 50.642% men vs. women 49.342% living on the Earth. Because women’s nature is more likely to follow the Celestial laws, there are 98.8% of the countries of the world there are more women in the church than men. And in the US there are 56% women as members of the church, indicating, supporting, but not proving that my theory is plausible. The US representing 42% of the Worldwide population, which is a significant percentage, and far more than the less than 5% sampling used to predict our presidential candidates. Although this is but a drop in the ocean compared with the 100 billion who have been born, we have no statistics, or history to move in a contrary direction. And if there are only Celestial Beings that have been born to this planet, that can inherit this earth as a celestial sphere, this is the only theory that compliments most of what we know, and explains the seeming unfairness of the doctrine of plural wives (DC 132:1). These are my thoughts, please share with me yours?

With love, Cuddles.

Cuddles,

Thanks for participating on the forum. Can I make one technical suggestion: using more line breaks in your posts will improve the readability of your posts.

Cuddles wrote:Having done temple work for years, I asked this question of the Church Handbook of Instruction while talking with the Seattle Temple President back in 2000. The Temple President said that...

Your temple president is not a doctrinal source, and since there is no doctrine regarding eternal polyandry (for or against), what he told you is nothing more or less than his own private, if well-reasoned, opinion. There are other widely-held speculations. I have even heard of exceptions being granted to allow living women to be sealed to a second husband after the first was deceased, though I've been unable to corroborate them. But that's beside the point; apart from church policy allowing posthumous polyandrous sealings, we don't know much.

As to the Lord commanding the discontinuance of plural marriage, the Lord showed Pres. Snow that this was “the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue” OD 1, Excerpts, Para 5, because to do otherwise would have meant the church leaders being arrested, the temples and other property confiscated, and the discontinuance of the remaining temple ordinances. And so we continued to practice plural marriage only when the husband outlived his 1st wife!!

It was President Woodruff, not President Snow. And I was addressing how you specifically said, and I quote, "This was not rescinded by the Lord." President Woodruff said he was not simply giving into the law, and would have let all those things happen out of obedience, had not the Lord commanded that the practice stop.

And that therefore there are only 3 possibilities, equal men & women, or more men than women, which would not work with polygamy.

With you so far.

Even if there are more women than men (which I absolutely reject), the fact that polygamy would indeed solve this problem does NOT mean that it's the reason the Lord instituted polygamy.

Let's walk through the logical fallacy:
Action A causes desirable result B, therefore I did action A in order to get result B.
If I plant an orchard, I will definitely get lots of shade. Therefore, I planted an orchard in order to enjoy shade.
The problem with this logic is that it ignores possible C's, D's, E's, etcetra. It turns out that I planted the orchard for the fruit and for the money that comes from selling the fruit, and that being able to sit in the shade is just an added bonus. THIS is what we mean by confusing correlation and causation. The Lord said he instituted polygamy in order to "raise up seed." That it would solve a situation in the Celestial Kingdom if there were more women than men could simply be a side effect.

But, again, your statistical reasoning is deeply flawed.

Again, the problem: if this probationary period is a test (which it is) and if men are less likely to pass that test (which you claim), then God has designed a biased, sexist test, or he has created an inferior sex. Either way, it would be biased and unfair. And if we know anything about God it is that he is perfectly fair; indeed, if he were not perfectly just, he would CEASE TO BE GOD. (See Alma 42: 13, 22, 25) As it says in 2 Ne 26, "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God. We were all, male and female, created in the image of God, all with the same divine potential. You have not yet addressed this.

When wars are fought, they are done so by men.

When has fighting in a war disqualified anyone from the celestial kingdom?

When murders, rape, and all manner of violence takes place, they are overwhelmingly by men.

So? These kinds of sins are extremely uncommon. The highest yearly murder rate on record in America was .01% per year in 1991. Compare that, for instance, to the Abortion rate: 22% of pregnancies are aborted. And abortions are usually committed by women, right? In fact, each year, about 2% of American women at child-bearing age have an abortion. (see:http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html). This isn't a world-wide, history-wide number, but it's at least statistically significant, unlike the murder rate. What, you think that there are fewer men in the church because the men who would have joined the church are off killing and raping people?

Because women’s nature is more likely to follow the Celestial laws, there are 98.8% of the countries of the world there are more women in the church than men. And in the US there are 56% women as members of the church, indicating, supporting, but not proving that my theory is plausible.

Another logical leap. First of all, the numbers only show that American women are more likely to be in the church than men, not obey celestial law. Second, if you look at the numbers for converts, 51% are women and 49% are men, which coincides with the demographics of the United States: 51% female, 49% male.

The US representing 42% of the Worldwide population, which is a significant percentage, and far more than the less than 5% sampling used to predict our presidential candidates.

I hope you mean that the US has 42% of members of the church, not that the united states makes up 42% of the world. The united states only makes up 4.52% of the world's population. This is very very very bad statistical methodology. This would be like sampling for the presidential candidates by polling only states west of the Mississippi. Poll sampling is accurate because it is random and spread out. Again, if you can get some statistics from the spirit world and past dispensations, then you might be able to make a case. But our US numbers are in a particular historical context: a post-feminist world.

Although this is but a drop in the ocean compared with the 100 billion who have been born, we have no statistics, or history to move in a contrary direction.

This is such a drop of the bucket that's it comparable to counting the gender statistics of my apartment complex and assuming that it represents those of the entire world. Repeat after me: we don't know. What do we know? God is fair, or he would cease to be God. And I suggest that you have no contrary information because you haven't looked for it.

Please read http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... mographics starting with Page 84

and

http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/12/01/i ... ics-again/

Love,
Sauron

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:Please read http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... mographics starting with Page 84

Here's a link that goes directly to that page: http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?/dialogue,14392

- Your friendly neighborhood librarian

Cuddles,

I don’t have a problem with plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom. If there are six times as many women who want to be eternally married as there are men in the Celestial Kingdom who want to be married, I’m fine with that. I just think you need to back off a bit in your thinking that plural marriage is a logical necessity.

Let me indicate what seem to me to be a few weak points in your argument.

1. You use a statistic that six times as many men as women serve time in prison. Does this support the idea that women are more righteous than men? I don’t think so. Serving time in prison does not disqualify you from the Celestial Kingdom, according to the scriptures. What kinds of things do? D&C 76: 103 says, speaking of those who inherit the Telestial Kingdom, “These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.” D&C 63: 17 adds “the fearful” and “unbelieving” to the list. I would say that women are at least as likely as men to fall into these categories, for which they do not go to jail. I submit that many more people will go to the Telestial Kingdom than those who go to jail.

2. It is not enough to avoid the sins of commission, or repent of these sins, to inherit the Celestial Kingdom. That might get you to the Terrestial Kingdom. But in order to get to the Celestial Kingdom you have to go well beyond that. You have to avoid the sins of omission. You have to be valiant in the testimony of Jesus. What does that mean? Well, I don’t think it is enough to just do everything you are told to do in the Church. You have to take the initiative and aggressively pursue a righteous course of action. You have to seek out the pearl of great price. You have to have the fire in your heart. If it is true that men are more aggressive, then it stands to reason that men are more valiant in the faith, and more men than women will be in the Celestial Kingdom. I don’t think men are more aggressive, but since you seem to think so I’ll use your argument against you. And for an added bogus argument I’ll ask how many women can you name by name that the scriptures say have been seen in vision to be in the Celestial Kingdom? There are lots of men named.

3. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that there will be more women than men in the Celestial Kingdom. Does this mean there has to be plural marriage in order to be fair? No. It could be that just as many men as women desire to be eternally married. All the other women might rather serve in some other capacity than as baby machines. Of course, we don’t actually understand what everyone will be doing in the Celestial Kingdom, but my speculation is not necessarily inferior to yours. It is only unfair if it is something you not only have been promised and kept your part of the covenant, but you really want it once you are there.

That's my two cents.

Waldorf and Sauron wrote:Again, the problem: if this probationary period is a test (which it is) and if men are less likely to pass that test (which you claim), then God has designed a biased, sexist test, or he has created an inferior sex. Either way, it would be biased and unfair. And if we know anything about God it is that he is perfectly fair; indeed, if he were not perfectly just, he would CEASE TO BE GOD. (See Alma 42: 13, 22, 25) As it says in 2 Ne 26, "he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God. We were all, male and female, created in the image of God, all with the same divine potential. You have not yet addressed this.

I think you are assuming that God designed the test, or that God created gender, or God determined which gender we have. We get into a problem when we assume that God made us the way we are, which would make a mockery of choice and accountability. I believe the test is based on eternal principles which God did not create.

I believe that gender is eternal, and is not a concept which originates with God. It is my personal belief that God did not choose which of us would be male, and which of us would be female - it is part of our uncreated, innate nature. So, to me it might be entirely fair if one sex is more likely to inherit the Celestial Kingdom than the other sex. It could be that there is a correlation between the uncreated gender we have and other uncreated innate characteristics we have that determine whether we ultimately arrive at the Celestial Kingdom.

I believe when the scriptures say that all are alike unto God it means that everything depends on what we do with our life, and not with God preferring women to men, or white to black. It's the content of our character. But we aren't all alike to God in the sense that some die in infancy and evidently inherit the Celestial Kingdom, while those who live must keep all the commandments. God knows us and is omniscient, so he knows who will inherit the Telestial Kingdom. You can say these folks had the same divine potential, but there is something they lack that God could not give them.

vorpal blade wrote: I think you are assuming that God designed the test

Why yes, yes I am. Is this not a given?

... or that God created gender, or God determined which gender we have.

We certainly know that God organized our spiritual matter into spirit bodies in the premortal realm. We don't know which qualities our Heavenly father gave us and which were already ours, but we do know that by making us his children he made us better and gave us potential we otherwise never would have had. Though I haven't found any scripture to give a definitive answer, I'm of the opinion that our gender was determined by God. I'm not alone in this.

M. Russell Ballard: “The premortal and mortal natures of men and women were specified by God Himself"

Boyd K. Packer: Your gender was determined in the premortal existence.

[url=http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?l ... 82620aRCRD]Richard G. Scott[/url: ]The scriptures record, “And I, God, created man … ; male and female created I them.” 1 This was done spiritually in your premortal existence when you lived in the presence of your Father in Heaven. Your gender existed before you came to earth.

You say:

We get into a problem when we assume that God made us the way we are, which would make a mockery of choice and accountability.

Our heavenly father didn't create our intelligences, but he certainly created us in a very real way.

From the last citation by Richard G. Scott:

Our Heavenly Father endowed His sons and daughters with unique traits especially fitted for their individual responsibilities as they fulfill His plan.

You say:

I believe the test is based on eternal principles which God did not create.

Sure, but God created the world (you're not disputing that, are you?) to conform to those principles, and we know very well what some of them they are: justice. Fairness. Agency. If God sets one gender up to be more likely to fail (which we know he does not do), he is not impartial.

God knows us and is omniscient, so he knows who will inherit the Telestial Kingdom. You can say these folks had the same divine potential, but there is something they lack that God could not give them.

Did their nature, their lack of potential, or their choices put them there? God has promised that each one of us is able to obtain the Celestial Kingdom. He knows some of us won't, but it's not because it was impossible.

vorpal blade wrote:So, to me it might be entirely fair if one sex is more likely to inherit the Celestial Kingdom than the other sex.

How is that fair? If men are more likely to enter the Celestial Kingdom than women are, or vice versa, then someone who doesn't get into the Celestial Kingdom could argue that if they were a member of the gender more likely to get into heaven, they'd be there, and thus blaming his or her gender status as to why he or she didn't make it.

So I think that men and women have as much chance as the other to enter the Celestial Kingdom. That is what would be fair.

Thank you Sauron, Pres. Snows name is just below Pres. Woodruff in OD 1, and was just off screen above when I wrote the article. Thank you also for the web links Sauron & Katya.
__First let us address the issue of Polyandry or Plural Husbands. The Lord gave his reason for the principles of Eternal Marriage and Plurality of Wives as taught in DC 132, and at least one of his reasons in Jacob 2:30 “to raise up seed.” If a man had 10 wives, at the end of the first year, there may be as many as 10 children. If one woman had 10 husbands there could only be one child after the first year, thereby not fulfilling the reason or purpose that the Lord gave in Jacob. The institution of this principle of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Eternal marriage, and plurality of wives has been in existence since the beginning of time, and many (not few) of the Lords people: “…DC 132:38 David also received amany wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time;...” As to the issue of gender demographics in the Celestial kingdom, we will discuss that later. As to weather or not a Temple President is qualified to answer questions of Sealings in the Temple, or if his answers are just “Opinion,” and do not represent the church? Let us refer to the LDS Church Handbook of Instruction, 2006 edition, page 84, subject “Sealing Policies,” upper right hand corner of the page. “Stake presidents should contact the Office of the First Presidency or the Temple in their temple district for guidance in special circumstances related to sealings that are not covered in these instructions.” Meaning that the Temple Presidency most assuredly is trained to represent the church, and not just his own personal opinion. On page 85, subject “Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death,” WOMEN: A living woman may be sealed to only one husband. MEN: If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man.” So as we can clearly see, the practice of Plural wives was not discontinued in the Eternal sense of the word. This idea of Plural Husbands has not been taught by God, is not found in any of the scriptures, and none of the talks, or books written by our modern day prophets. It is in conflict with the principles of the Patriarchal order which have been taught. If we look at the symbols of marriage, the ceremony itself; The bride bears the name of her father, being part of his kingdom. Then the father gives away the bride to the husband during the Christian wedding ceremony (since I can’t talk much about the Temple ceremony). The bride becomes part of the husbands kingdom (which is taught in the temple). The wife bears her husbands name, and all the children bear her husbands name, also being part of his kingdom. The husband being part of his fathers kingdom, and his grand fathers kingdom, all the way back to Adam who is part of Jesus kingdom, who is part of our Father in heavens kingdom, “…and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” DC 76:58. This is the Patriarchal order, which is in direct conflict with this idea of Plural Husbands. The Patriarchal Order would not function with Plurality of Husbands. So the scriptures, and our Christian traditions, and our Temple teachings, Ceremonies are all contrary to this idea which is false, as strongly indicated above. You can dream about it. You can dream about ice cream mountains, and candy cane forests, but it is, and will remain – only a dream.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... SHOW=14392

__Now for the ideas discussed in DIALOGUE, A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 17, Number 01, Spring 1984, pages 84 – 86, “In Heaven are Parents Single?” see above link. What is interesting about this journal is that they came up with many of the same idea’s that we have. NerdGirls idea about Men from other Celestial Earths marrying women here on our Earth, (see page 84, paragraph 01, “Inter-kingdom mobility.” My idea about more women in the celestial kingdom than men, complimenting the doctrine of plurality of wives, page 84, paragraph 01 “more female than male converts.” And they note (Nt 02, page 84) that Orson Pratt thought that Father in Heaven must have been married to more than one wife in order to reduce the length of time of the “gestation period” in his book “The Pre-existence of Man” March 1853, page 38. The possibility of polygamous or other marital forms in the future life, (Page 84, Paragraph 01)), that Sauron and others have mentioned. In this article they consider the sex composition in the celestial kingdom, primarily based on pre-industrial Europe infant mortality statistics. And considering the modern day revelation that Children who die before the age of 8, are saved to the Celestial kingdom, DC 137:10. They conclude that there may be about 1.7 billion more men, than women in the celestial kingdom. This as I have stated before would frustrate the Lords plan of salvation, and eternal life if it were true. So do they know this for certainty, no. They state in the last paragraph of page 86, that these “are rough guesses” and that large differences in the statistics could effect their conclusions. They also note that the mortality rates are now very low in comparison to the rates they used. What was not discussed was that there are 3 categories of death before the age of 8. We have some data on infant mortality, and gender. But we do not have information on gender for deaths of aborted children, and miss-carriages. This could alter the conclusions significantly.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/12/01/i ... ics-again/

__In Steve Pecks 2008 article of “It’s Raining Men: Celestial Demographics,” see above link, he sited that according to a survey done on the BCC that the number one worry of church members is Celestial Polygamy. He states up front that these statistics were “just extra-fancy back-of-the-envelope calculations.” And further that it is “full of mistakes,” and that he notes to the readers of this article that he uses words that give him wiggle room, such as “maybe, may, and might.” Steve Peck, an Evolutionary Biologist from BYU concluded that there may be as many as “2 to 4 billion more males than females in the Celestial Kingdom based on [again] infant mortality differences between the sexes.” So as before, both authors let the readers know that these are only rough estimates, and just enough data to engage in the discussion, and the possibility of what things MIGHT be like in the Celestial kingdom.

__So my thoughts are these: If only those resurrected celestial beings that are born to this earth, will inherit it (Mat 5:5, Ps 37:22, DC 130:5) which I believe to be implied in the Lords teachings, then there must be more celestial sisters than brothers in Fathers kingdom for the doctrine of plural wives, and Eternal marriage to work. As Brigham Young stated: “The only men who become Gods, even Sons of God, are those enter into polygamy,” Journal of Discourses 11:268. So weather in this life, or the next, this question of plural wives will follow us. And as stated above, we still do practice plurality of wives, when we can abide by the laws of the land. Therefore, since God is a just and fair God, and must offer to all (1 Ne 3:7 …prepare a path) who have lived by celestial laws the opportunity to become Gods, Kings, and Priests, together with their wives as Goddesses, Queens, and Priestesses. This to fulfill the full measure of our creation, and to truly become like our Father in heaven, there must be more sisters than brothers in the Celestial kingdom. This idea of the Celestial kingdom compliments what was taught in the Temple, and written in the LDS Church Handbook of Instruction, and what the Lord taught us in DC 132, and to which has existed since the beginning of time (DC 132:388), has never been discontinued (in the Eternal sense), and is still in practice today, as stated on page 85 of the LDS Church Handbook of Instruction, 2006. These are my thoughts, please share with me yours?
Sincerely, Cuddles.

Cuddles,
I'd be willing to discuss these tangents at some point, but I'm really not interested in doing so unless you'll first engage with the central arguments of my last post addressed to you.

Cuddles wrote:
Having done temple work for years, I asked this question of the Church Handbook of Instruction while talking with the Seattle Temple President back in 2000. The Temple President said that...

Your temple president is not a doctrinal source, and since there is no doctrine regarding eternal polyandry (for or against), what he told you is nothing more or less than his own private, if well-reasoned, opinion. There are other widely-held speculations. I have even heard of exceptions being granted to allow living women to be sealed to a second husband after the first was deceased, though I've been unable to corroborate them. But that's beside the point; apart from church policy allowing posthumous polyandrous sealings, we don't know much. Waldor and Sauron.


Quote:
As to the Lord commanding the discontinuance of plural marriage, the Lord showed Pres. Snow that this was “the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue” OD 1, Excerpts, Para 5, because to do otherwise would have meant the church leaders being arrested, the temples and other property confiscated, and the discontinuance of the remaining temple ordinances. And so we continued to practice plural marriage only when the husband outlived his 1st wife!! Cuddles wrote.

It was President Woodruff, not President Snow. And I was addressing how you specifically said, and I quote, "This was not rescinded by the Lord." President Woodruff said he was not simply giving into the law, and would have let all those things happen out of obedience, had not the Lord commanded that the practice stop. Waldorf and Sauron.


Quote:
And that therefore there are only 3 possibilities, equal men & women, or more men than women, which would not work with polygamy. Cuddles wrote.


With you so far. Waldorf and Sauron.

Now you brought these subjects up, and I responded to them AFTER I had read the Web Links that you had sent me about "In Heaven are Parents Single?", and Steve Pecks 2008 article "It's Raining Men: Celestial Demographics." I answer them in the order that they were recieved, and if I feel I can contribute. You lattest, will come later, because they were posted later than the above. Sincerely, Cuddles.

I (Cuddles) am copying and pasting some comments made last year when Steve Peck wrote his article "It's Raining Men: Celestial Demographics" in Dec 2008. Below is a web link to his article, and below the weblink are some comments by the other Website.


http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/12/01/i ... ics-again/


4. Matt W. Says:
December 1, 2008 at 8:25 am
There is the whole “Baptism for the Dead” thing though. I think the concern for Celestial Polygamy (which I don’t believe in) stems from a believe that women accept the Gospel more than men, which is true, but is an issue of correlation not equaling causation, I think. Women accept the Gospel more often than men because Women (world wide) are in the home more than men are, and thus are more available to be tracted into by missionaries.

7. The Right Trousers Says:
December 1, 2008 at 9:21 am
As well as spell-checking, make sure your parens match. My parser broke while reading this.
The conclusions of all these population studies turn on the values of random variables we can’t estimate – and worse, probably a few we can’t imagine. Here’s another one anyway: if it turns out women accept the gospel proportionally more than men do in mortality, how much of that is due to biology? Women reason about emotion better than men do, and that’s purely biological. It seems to me that sensitivity to the Spirit could be the same. Got a place for that variable somewhere in your model?
Also, what about extra-terrestrials? You might assume that they’re like us… but what if this planet is an outlier? What if this nearly 50/50 ratio is really just a quirk? What about 33/67? Or 33/33/34? Or 10/20/30/40? The mind boggles.

9. MikeInWeHo Says:
December 1, 2008 at 9:42 am
Could you extend your analysis and provide the demographic composition of the other kingdoms? As someone who’s mostly concerned about avoiding a TK smoothie at this point, I would find that additional information useful.

10. J. Nelson-Seawright Says:
December 1, 2008 at 10:21 am
This post seems to provide corroborating evidence for Dan Savage’s inspiration (on the Colbert Report) in proposing gay polygamy as an adjunct to traditional Mormon marriage practices.

11. Rob Osborn Says:
December 1, 2008 at 10:27 am
Some good work there as far as guessing goes. Its too bad that guessing is not a valid part of the argument! We can only assume that which are absolutes. How many/ what percentage of God’s children will make it back to him? That is quite impossible to calculate. It would be easier to hypothesize over how many turtles die each year by getting ran over on a highway at night!
It’s as if we wear these telestial glasses around that really clouds reality. The reality of earthlife is that only a very small percentage of God’s children have the opportunity to accept the gospel on true faith under the right circumstances while in mortality. So, we know the majority of gospel work happens after death. Those disembodied spirits will basically be back in their native element that they were in before they entered mortality. And how many of those disembodied spirits at one time accepted Christ? We can definately say that it was almost all of them.
So then the question really becomes- what baggage do we carry from mortality that would perhaps change our view of returning to God’s presence?
We may just find that the majority of Gods children make it back to the Celestial kingdom as married exalted individuals- especially if most of the work pertaining to exaltation happens after mortality.
The glasses we view through are foggy- remember that!

14. Pedro Says:
December 1, 2008 at 11:12 am
My 2 cents:
The whole “Celestial Polygamy” idea, that post-manifesto mormons will be polygamous in the CK, seems to me to be an attempt to reconcile 2 facts:
1)19th century Church leaders described celestial marriage in ways that would suggest that the only celestial marriages are polygamous ones.

2)God has commanded us NOT TO practice polygamy today.
One way to describe how these two facts can be true at the same time, without appealing to the “speaking as a man” loophole,is the idea of “celestial polygamy”.
The problem with saying: “we will” or “we wont” is that we don’t know what the final tally will be of people who have passed the final judgement and are found “worthy” of exaltation. We also don’t know how many wives or husbands will accept their spouses during the resurection. Just because someone is in “good standing” with the Church, that does not mean they are in good standing with God. Just because two people are “still together”, doesn’t mean they want to stay that way.
So for me, the whole questian of Celestial demographics is pointless.
Let’s face it, polygamy isn’t romantic, to us at least.
When Prince Charming woke up Snow White, he didn’t have 3 sister-wives there to greet her.

21. SteveS Says:
December 1, 2008 at 12:27 pm
What did all those spirits of men and women who died before the age of accountability do up in the pre-mortal existence to merit celestial glory? 18.25 billion of them, 3 times the current population of the planet. All automatically exalted. So why do I get the pleasure of struggling to gain my exaltation as part of the meager 146 million of us who have heard the “true” gospel of Christ, complete with saving ordinances?
I don’t want to sound flippant, but these numbers make God’s plan sound absurd if accurate. While scripture and logic confirms that God needs to concentrate mostly on people who are accountable for their own actions, could God’s plan really to let enough people to survive until adulthood just so they can produce offspring, 25% of which would die before the age of accountability and therefore be automatically saved? It seems the best way of getting the greatest number of spirits their exaltation. But it sounds like a sneaky way to get people there, considering Satan’s plan was to not give people a chance to choose, and infants, toddlers, and young children who die young don’t really have an opportunity to choose, either.
Also, assuming that you die with the same spirit that possessed your body upon leaving this life, I speculate that there won’t be a whole lot of those who didn’t hear the “true” gospel making it to the celestial kingdom, either. For comparison, if 25% of all the spirits in spirit prison accept proxy ordinances and receive exaltation (18.25 billion), that would represent 125 times the number of people who have heard and accepted the gospel while here on the earth (based on current church membership against world population). 25% acceptance of spirits in spirit prison seems unrealistic from a statistical perspective. Granted, the 0.2% doesn’t account for the fact that current church membership percentage is lower than it might be if every person on earth had both opportunity to hear and accept the church’s message; however, it doesn’t account for inactive/less-than-faithful members who won’t make it to the celestial kingdom (something like 40-50% of those 12 million, or about 0.1%). The 0.2% also favors the fact that many of those members were born into membership in the church, and may not have “chosen” the church had they been born into another family in some other part of the world, even if given the chance. In reality, the percentage of people who would accept the gospel as it was presented to them would probably be just as low as 0.2%, if not lower (think of how many doors you knocked on and people you approached on the street on your mission). If these people’s spirits reject the gospel on earth, what makes us think they’ll accept the gospel in the hereafter? Surely all those who don’t hear the message of the gospel while on earth aren’t going to magically be more open to receive the message than all those that did hear the message here on earth.
Looking at the numbers, it seems to me that the majority of the people up in the celestial kingdom are going to be spirits who never had a chance to decide to follow Jesus during their mortal lives. Even after the great work for the dead is accomplished. Automatically exalted.
Not wishing to discount the magnitude of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, could it be that our concepts of salvation and exaltation are skewed here? If so, I’m more inclined to take a more universalist stance as a result. I don’t know what to think, though. Perhaps my line of thinking is flawed? What assumptions am I making that might be incorrect? What conclusions am I suggesting that do not follow from the data and assumptions cited? Just so it’s clear, I’m asking these questions in earnest. Please critique and respond if you feel so inclined.

22. Jacob J Says:
December 1, 2008 at 12:31 pm
JNS, true enough. Of course, sometimes our canonized church teachings are in tension such that accepting all of them together is no better than rejecting one or the other. Those tensions also need working out at some point.
Steve, good one. I love me some pie charts.


24. Geoff J Says:
December 1, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Hey Steven P,
Good stuff.
Help me understand your logic/assumption in that last section though. You said:
and because females are terminated much more frequently in these developing nations, it means that more males will be born and because of the high male infant death rate, it is going to produce an even greater number males ending up dying before the age of accountability than females
So are you assuming that abortions don’t add to the count of exalted persons? That is an useful assumption to spell out I would think…

25. SteveP Says:
December 1, 2008 at 1:39 pm
SteveS, good questions. Children have died at a horrendous rate. That’s a biological fact and a heart breaking one at that. That is a lot of sorrow. I don’t know what the answer is, but as someone above said, our glasses are foggy, broken, and often the wrong prescription. The thing is we cannot resolve it from where we are standing because we lack a lot of the data we need to sort through it. The only thing I really am certain about is my belief that mothers will get to raise the children they’ve lost. After that I’m not sure how things will play out.

26. J. Nelson-Seawright Says:
December 1, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Jacob J., your post is interesting, but your ideas seem to shipwreck on the text of D&C 137, which does not group little children together with those who didn’t receive the gospel. Instead, it gives a conditional promise of the celestial kingdom to those who die without the gospel and a universal promise to those who die before the age of accountability — it’s an explicit textual contrast. This isn’t really a problem if we set aside contemporary philosophical commitments; the scriptures never contradict this universal claim.

28. SteveP Says:
December 1, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Geoff, I do make that assumption in my analysis. Since we have no doctrine on how those figure in. The skew in male vs. female human caused abortions (with more females being aborted) is fairly recent and won’t affect things drastically for a long time. In natural abortions (when the fetus just does not come to term for unknown biological reasons of development) there is a male bias in that as well.

29. Rob Osborn Says:
December 1, 2008 at 1:46 pm
StevenS,
Our understanding of doctrine is skewed, that is why it doesn’t add up! For starters there will be no such thing as a child being saved as a child in the celestial kingdom. In the end, all will be grown individuals with a perfect and capable intelligence. As such, there truly is no such thing as automatic salvation into the celestial kingdom as an end result for unaccountable children. It would indeed deny them the use of their agency in the matter.
The reality of things is that little children will be raised and grow in the millennium and reach an accountable age and therefore be under the “law”. According to obedeince to the law, all must still accept the covenant relationship with Heavenly Father- none will be exempt. Therefore, all will have the opportunity to decide whether to accept or decline Jesus Christ through the baptismal covenant.
I think it would of been a lot clearer if Joseph Smith had just stated that all little children who die before becoming accountable are received into paradise to await their resurrection. It doesn’t make any sense to give them automatic salvation knowing that they have not yet made the choice to be saved themselves.
As far as percentages of those accepting Christ in the afterlife, we do not know what the conditions are there for them. We can assume that the conditions are more favorable because there will be the added knowledge of the afterlife and the hell there waiting for them. There will probably be very few indeed who will not accept Christ in the afterlife seeings how his name is the only name that can save one from that hell they are in.


30. SteveP Says:
December 1, 2008 at 1:55 pm
#28 Continued, Another reason to be careful is that estimates range from 25% to 50% of all unrecognized pregnancies are naturally aborted (meaning that it happens so soon after fertilization people don’t realize they were pregnant).

31. kevinf Says:
December 1, 2008 at 2:23 pm
It used to creep me out with the number of guys in my old Utah ward (wards, actually, as they kept getting split) who were really looking forward to celestial polygamy. I used to drag out the Committee on Celestial Demographics report for some of them. Some of those losers will need to reexamine their existing relationships with their current wives, perhaps, before getting their hopes up.
As for me and my house, there will be no celestial polygamy. My wife doesn’t want it, and neither do I. Last time I checked, agency was an eternal principal with far more consistent application than polygamy.

32. SteveP Says:
December 1, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Well said, kevin.

33. J. Nelson-Seawright Says:
December 1, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Rob Osborn, while we’re rewriting Joseph Smith’s revelations, what else would you like to change? But let’s remember that the revelation said categorically that all young children who die are saved in the Celestial Kingdom.

34. Jacob J Says:
December 1, 2008 at 3:05 pm
JNS,
Yes, D&C 137 is the obvious clincher. My response is simply that we have statements just as straightforward promising eternal life to anyone who didn’t hear the gospel in this life. Those, of course, were overturned by later revelations. I don’t disagree that D&C 137 must be considered the official stance of the church (and say as much in my opening paragraph), but I see lots of reasons to suppose that God has not revealed the full story on the salvation of little children, so my post in in the spirit of putting together my best guess and what that further revelation will entail.
This isn’t really a problem if we set aside contemporary philosophical commitments
I think you are downplaying the importance of what must be set aside. The automatic exaltation of little children challenges the whole notion of this life being a necessary part of the plan of salvation. It suggests that God could have saved everyone in a very simple fashion (by killing us before we reached the age of eight). It suggests that killing children is doing them a service. None of these are small considerations.

Psst! Cuddles - If you learn to use the quote tags, your responses will be much easier to read (and you might find more people willing to engage your arguments). As it is, your responses look like one undifferentiated text mass.