Polygamy and the Last Days

So, here's my thing.  I believe polygamy is a celestial law.  For those not members, or recent members of the LDS Church that means I believe it will exist in heaven.  But just because it exists there and is approved there does not mean that everyone will practice it.  But how else will Jacob be with Rachel and Leah?  Some may say, but he loved Rachel... but does Leah deserve to be left out?  Or will God separate that famous family- with the 12 tribes of Israel directly coming from the multiple wives of Jacob?

I always thought that IF I was asked, by God, to practice polygamy, that my husband would have more than one wife, that I would be ok with it.  Now, with being married- I'm not sure I could deal with it.  I want to feel like I'm the only one that matters to my husband and like I am enough for him.  That I, alone, can fulfill his needs.  I don't want to feel in competition for my husband's love like Rachel and Leah- trying to have more sons, so maybe my husband will love me more, or come to me more.  My husband has quoted a scripture a few times when polygamy has come up in public and it bothered me.  So we discussed it, and he stays silent now and tries to be as attentive as possible to me and my needs.  I want to clarify here that my husband is AWESOME!  He doesn't hope for more wives than just me, it just made me feel weird BEFORE we discussed things.  I think we have similar views on polygamy even if he doesn't completely agree with this post. :)  So back on track: the scripture he used is found in both Isaiah 4 and 2 Nephi 14- quoting Isaiah.

So I'm going to quote Isaiah 4:1, "And in that day seven women shall take hold on one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach."  First off, the first verse of the chapter is "And"...  so most people assume it is continuing the thoughts of the previous chapter.  Before this chapter it is talking about wars that will happen in the last days, so they assume that 7 women are going after one man because there will be a scarcity of men due to wars in the last days.  Then the second part of that verse says that they will eat their own bread and wear their own apparel...  I looked up a few things and apparently that is contrary to the Lord's order of marriage (D&C 132:61 says the first wife gives her consent and Exodus 21:10-11, says that the man is responsible for those things if he marries more than one wife.)  With the last part- 'to take away our reproach' there are 2 verses that talk about how it was considered a disgrace in Ancient Israel to be unmarried and/or childless.  (Genesis 30:23 and Luke 1:25) (see Institute Student Manual for the Old Testament, Kings-Malachi)

Before this morning I told my husband that it doesn't say that every 7 women will take hold of every individual man.  That even though I believe that scripture will come true (as all scriptures must), it doesn't mean HE will be the one man to fulfill it.  In the LDS Church, when polygamy was practiced, not every man had multiple wives.  They had to be righteous enough and wealthy enough to support the extra wives.  And they weren't allowed to personally decide whether they were qualified.  I believe strongly in the scripture in Jacob 2:27-28 and 30, "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 I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.... 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."  First off, I feel like the Lord is on MY side in verse 27 and 28.  Verse 30 designates the exception, when polygamy is ok.  In the Old Testament with Abraham and Jacob taking more than one wife and others- they were trying to raise up a seed unto the Lord.  All nations would be blessed through Abraham, and then through Jacob/Israel, why not expand the family and multiply?  In the early days of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons- when there were no other break-offs that also went by that same nickname) they also practiced polygamy.  In the first days, the people in the Church were persecuted and men were killed for their beliefs.  Then war came and more men were killed.  This left many righteous women and few righteous men.  And women at that time, did not yet have rights to own land, to work, to sustain themselves.  Some practiced polygamy I think to raise up seed, and others I think was more to take care of the women and children's temporal needs, who otherwise would've been destitute.  But the important thing is, men were selected and the first wife got to give consent.  Polygamy was stopped in the LDS Church because there was no more need to raise up seed unto the Lord.  The LDS Church has MANY members and is thriving.  Widows or divorced parents are at least allowed these days to own a house, to work to provide for their families and they do not need a husband to let them survive.

Before today I have recently started thinking about the verse in Isaiah....  Isaiah isn't very clear to most of us.  And sometimes he jumps back and forth between Christ's time, the Last Days and the Millenium.  I have thought a few times- maybe this scripture has already been fulfilled when the Church first started in these Last Days.  There was a shortage of men, and I'm sure some of the women said, "please let us have your name".  But then today, reading the verse again where it says they will provide their own bread and apparel, if only they can take their name....  well, back then, they couldn't provide their own bread.  They did depend on the men they married.  I've also thought, that in this verse it says 7 women will come to one man begging to be married to him so their reproach is taken away...  But this doesn't mean that it is right for the man to take on the 7 women, or that he will, just says that the women will beg for it.  Kinda like the 10 virgins, the 5 foolish ones didn't bring enough oil, and when they finally get to the wedding, they beg to come in, but they aren't allowed.

But this morning my husband and I were reading in 3 Nephi 22 which parallels Isaiah 54, and I started to think more on this and I have another possible interpretation for the verse in Isaiah.  I'll quote what I read this morning and then try to explain it, as best as possible.  I'm going to explain as I go but the quotes will be from 3 Nephi 22:1-                     , "And then shall that which is written come to pass:  Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child; for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord."  So here we have a married woman who has no or few children and then women that are not married with children.  Let's say 7 desolate women with children and 1 married woman.  "Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations; spare not, lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes;"  Let the desolate come in.  If we are paralleling it with Isaiah 4, then this would be the 7 women taking on the man's name.  This would be one married man taking on 7 more wives.  "...Fear not, for thou shalt not be ashamed; neither be thou confounded, for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of they widowhood any more."  Here, now married, the 7 desolate/widowed women's reproach is taken away.  "For thy maker, thy husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel--the God of the whole earth shall he be called."  This reminded me of a parable of Christ being the Bridegroom.  Are all these scriptures tied together?  Salvation only comes in and through Christ.  When we are baptized, we take upon us the name of Christ.  It is the only name under heaven, whereby we can be saved.  Are these 7 women, desolate, unmarried, widowed, are they all not members of Christ's Church?  In the Last Days, they come to realize the truth of His Church and desire to be called by his name?  The scripture in Isaiah 4 says, "We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel", and suggests- we will take care of ourselves, "only let us be called by thy name".  Are these women aware of the truth and willing to do anything to just be baptized in Christ's name, the metaphorical Bridegroom?  To abide the Day of His Coming, isn't it Christ's name that will save us and take away our reproach? 

In Isaiah 4:2 it continues, "In that day shall the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious..."  The day when the 7 women grab hold of the one man, is a day where righteous seed does not need to be raised up unto the Lord.  I don't know exactly what to make of this verse- because it does seem to be tied to the chapter before and I haven't looked at that in detail.  But I do now wonder if it is all some poetic metaphor for taking on Christ's name and becoming as He is.

OPINION: Atonement and the Blood Atonement

So, I happened to say something to my husband recently about the Atonement and he asked if I believed in the "Blood Atonement".  I told him I didn't know what that was.  But I looked it up and essentially, it says that some sins are too great that they can only be forgiven by the shedding of the sinner's blood.  Meaning, if I committed some awful sin, that I can be forgiven if I am killed in a type of sacrifice.  I realized that I do not agree with this, but I understand now how my husband thought that I might.

My views of the Atonement are in line with scriptural phrases of  an "infinite atonement" (one reference for infinite atonement is in 2 Nephi 9:7).  Here is my thing: the Savior was perfect.  Everything He did was perfect.  His Atonement was infinite.  And when I think of the word infinite I think of "no end".  So I believe I shouldn't put any limits on what the Atonement CAN or CANNOT cover.  I believe there is nothing we can do that cannot be covered by the Atonement.  With that said, we have to turn to Him in order for the Atonement to work. 

To me, the Sons of Perdition are those who fully know what the Atonement can do for them, yet refuse to let it work in them.  To me, this fits.  The Sons of Perdition are the most evil people you could imagine, so I imagine Satan, with no veil, willfully choosing that he wanted no part in this life, or chance at salvation.  He knows He will never gain heaven, but only seeks to make others miserable, he is not misguided in his evil designs, just evil.  So, a Son of Perdition is someone who fully knowing, refuses the Atonement.  To put it another way, the Sons of Perdition are those who receive a full light and knowledge and deny the Holy Ghost.  From things I have read, the Holy Ghost is the member of the Godhead that allows us to be cleansed from sins through the Atonement- we call it the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost, and to deny the Holy Ghost the ability to sanctify and cleanse you, to me is to deny the Atonement.

Then there are the sins of murder and chastity sins which the scriptures say are VERY serious.  They both concern the giving and taking of life- which is a power of God.  To take that into our hands without God's permission is a mockery of His power and very serious.  Now here is where my husband thought I might believe in the Blood Atonement.  I was taught that there are "ABC's" of repentance.  In order to repent and be cleansed through the Atonement we have to first Admit we have done something wrong.  Let's take murder as an example, because this will lead to the matter at hand.  I have to admit that murdering someone was wrong.  B- Be Sorry.  I'd have to be sorry for what I did and feel remorse.  C- Confess AND Correct.  We also say to make amends where possible.  If I murdered someone, I can confess easily and go to jail (or at least I assume the person would go to jail) but correct it?  How can I make any attempts to correct it?  Now to compare it with chastity sins- it's hard to correct those too, but at least you can go to the person with whom you sinned with and apologize.  Maybe help them feel better about themselves, even if you can't give them back their virginity if you stole it.  But you can make amends with the person you wronged.  With murder, sure, you could go to the family and try to be supportive, but what about the actual person?  You stole their life.  And you can't even ask their forgiveness because they are no longer here.  I don't believe that by being killed, a murderer's blood helps them atone from their sin, but once they are dead, I believe it is then possible to go to the spirit of the person you harmed and ask their forgiveness.  But the actual shedding of blood part of the Blood Atonement, I don't agree with at all.  I simply believe that cold-blooded murder cannot be forgiven in this life.  I don't think I believe that the person should kill themselves just to go talk to the person either.  I believe they should do everything in their power to serve out a just sentence in prison and make the most of their life in doing good.  Then when they do die, however they die, then they can work on asking the person's forgiveness on the other side.  Maybe some will be forgiven, I do not know.  Here is where I come back to- I am not going to put a limit on the Atonement.

Christ's love is perfect.  His life was perfect.  His Atonement was perfect.  And with that perfect love I can't see Him not being able to love someone, no matter what their sin.  The difference to me is, does the sinner love Jesus?  Does the sinner turn to Jesus?  Do we turn to Jesus and allow the infinite Atonement to work in our lives?  Do we put limits on Jesus' perfect love and perfect and infinite Atonement?  Everyone sins, great or small- let us turn to Christ and be perfected in Him.