English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

I believe that it was a way for the women and children to be taken care of at a time when many of the LDS men had died or had to be away indefinitely. The men did not take extra wives because they wanted 'variety' or to make them feel macho or powerful. They married them to be protectors and providers, following the guidance of the Lord. When the Federal Government stepped in and pushed the issue, the circumstances under which plural marriages had begun had changed anyway, and it was no longer necessary. The Church has always believed in being subject to laws, so when told to abolish the practice, the Church did so.
Those that had been married for many years, and had children together, chose to leave the country rather than tear apart their families. Many of these families moved down to Mexico and established colonies there with their families. Many descendants are still there.
On a personal note: as a woman - I think it would be kind of cool to have another 'wife' in the home! Imagine sharing the load...sounds good to me! :)

2006-10-24 11:14:24 · answer #1 · answered by ewema 3 · 2 0

Had (past tense is the right way to express that verb) Anyone found practicing it now is excommunicated and no matter what they say, no longer a member of the church.

In my opinion (Note opinion) this was allowed in the time when the members of the church were being persecuted, killed, and then had to walk across the country to Utah. Many died along the way, and left widows behind. U.S. law at the time would not allow women to own property, or have any decent employment, so I imagine it was a way to make sure those women were taken care of.

2006-10-24 12:17:47 · answer #2 · answered by daisyk 6 · 3 0

Had was the correct use. The LDS church no longer accepts polygamy in the church. Those who practice it are not members of the church. Over 100 years ago, it was necessary for a short period of time. Pioneers had traveled thousands of miles to Utah to find refuge and safety from the world that was percesuting them. There were more women than men at the time and polygamy was necessary to build a population.
Visit the church's official website for more info at www.lds.org

2006-10-24 19:18:23 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Here is a reason a man I know is sealed to 2 women...

My neighbor's mom died when he was 12. His parents were sealed in the temple, meaning their marriage and family unit would last through eternity (as long as they remain faithful to their temple covenants of course.) His dad obviously didn't want to be alone. He was remarried and sealed to this woman also, in the temple. He had 2 children with his first wife and 3 children with his second wife. He was never "married" to two women at the same time. But, he is sealed to both women and will be with them both in the eternities...how could God make him choose which wife he would spend eternity with, of course he would want to be with both.

The reason? God made it that way.

2006-10-24 14:00:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

I don't know. Why did God allow those in the Old Testament to have more than one wife? I don't think God always gives explanations for what He does, though there's always good reasons for it.

I think the reason why we don't have an answer to this question is because we wouldn't understand it.

2006-10-24 12:09:30 · answer #5 · answered by SuperDDD 2 · 2 0

Pinkadot and Daisykris answered it well.

Personally speaking, providing for one wife is quite enough for me, I am talking about mentally, spiritually, socially and financially.

I only know that , it God blesses some one with more than one, then he sure deserve them. It is not something taking in vain.

2006-10-24 16:39:49 · answer #6 · answered by Wahnote 5 · 1 0

so that they can take over the world by populating it with Mormons

2006-10-24 12:17:59 · answer #7 · answered by David M 3 · 0 1

Joseph Smith said, god said, it was ok

2006-10-24 12:03:40 · answer #8 · answered by Messenger 3 · 0 0

thats obvious

2006-10-24 12:03:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers