- RLD on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, October 2026: “Unity through sports? Have the authors ever actually played church basketball? :)” Oct 30, 22:36
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, October 2026: “It looks like the latter item is an entire book, not a sole chapter: *Conjugal States: The Queerness of Nonmonogamy in Settler Worlds* by T. J. Tallie is scheduled for publication by the University of Minnesota Press on March 16, 2027.” Oct 30, 21:06
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Truth is, no one knows what relationships look like in the eternities. My guess is the sealing power was to seal up the family of God. To be fair, females should be allowed to be sealed to multiple men while alive. Think about the unfortunate young mom whose husband dies young. No men desiring a sealed marriage will be interested. Seal kids to multiple parents as well. It doesn’t matter. For those proponents of polygamy, guess what, you won’t have a partner in the next life. The gals will all be given to the boys in the red chairs. So I’ll most likely lose my wife of 45 years. We’ll be like the lost boys of Hilldale. There’s a reason the birthrate of males to females is roughly equal. There’s a ying and yang balance in the universe. And no, females will not out number males in the Celestial Kingdom. I’m hoping the afterlife is led by a matriarchy. It will be really entertaining to watch some good old boys. More females will continue to leave if the boys don’t address this issue of fairness.” Oct 30, 19:20
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: ““So did we stop because God only intended the church to practice polygamy for a relatively short time because monogamy is the norm, or did we stop because the United States government made us?” Um, both? From what I understand, God rarely if ever just “zaps” a prophet with a revelation. Revelations invariably come in response to questions. When the time came for us to stop practicing polygamy, He allowed the U. S. government to put enough pressure on the church for Pres. Woodruff to start asking the questions that opened the way for the revelation to occur. I’ll also tell a story that I think is relevant for people who worry about living women only being sealed to a single husband. When he was first called to the 12, one of Elder Bednar’s sons lived in our ward, and until that son completed his degree and moved away Elder Bednar visited two or three times a year to see his grandchildren. He would usually agree to hold a fireside that took the form of “Ask Me Anything” (although he always started with some instructions on what sorts of questions were appropriate.) One brothers question was: his parents were sealed in the temple, and he and his siblings were born in the covenant, but then the parents were divorced and had their sealing annulled. He wondered how that annulment affected his sealing to his parents. Elder Bednar answered that he was still entitled to all the blessings pertaining to being born in the covenant, and that his parents subsequent choices couldn’t change that. Then he added something to the effect that we often imagine the celestial kingdom as being like our earth life, where we live in family units, but that probably wasn’t exactly correct. I don’t know what the celestial kingdom will be like, but I know it will be good and glorious. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with speculating about it, but we shouldn’t take our speculations and imaginations so seriously that they lead us to abandon our covenants and disqualify ourselves from receiving celestial blessings. Some may consider this “dismissive”, but I’d prefer to say that I’m comfortable “putting the issue on the shelf.”” Oct 30, 15:32
- on Cutting Edge Latter-day Saint Research, October 2026: “The Tallie study in particular looks like it could make a major contribution toward understanding polygamy as something more than just patriarchal oppression.” Oct 30, 12:40
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “My apologies for being dismissive of women, PWS. That wasn’t my intention. The blog does seem to be disproportionately male, and we would certainly like to be engaging and inviting to more women.” Oct 30, 11:51
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “I’m guessing that Jack and Nibley are correct as far as they go. It’s just that they don’t go far enough. I don’t think any of us really know about the circumstances of our afterlife. I don’t think we can know–it’s beyond our limited mortal ability to comprehend. We are all just doing the best we can, based on what we individually like most about our lives here. As to the topic in general, it’s very telling that the conversation is all mostly men talking to men. When a woman does weigh in, her input is easily and lightly dismissed.” Oct 30, 11:37
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “And thanks for your contributions, DaveW. This certainly is a tricky subject, and I agree that those elements of what is often a standard narrative leave a lot of questions.” Oct 30, 07:35
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “Thanks for those quotes, Chad. The Utah period isn’t my specialty, but I remember Tom Alexander saying in my Utah history class many years ago that it was standard for Utah church leaders to interpret DC 131:1-4 as being about polygamy. That is, there are different degrees in the Celestial Kingdom and polygamy was required for the top degree. These quotes seem to suggest a similar point of view. Non-polygamists can get into the Celestial Kingdom but there seems to be advantages to polygamists. Cougar, thanks for looking. I get the need to be able to seal female ancestors to multiple spouses since death of spouses has been common throughout history. I do wonder how long the caveat about Mormon women who’d been sealed in life being able to have living relatives seal them to other spouses after they die has been in place. Jack, I’m guessing you and Nibley are correct. Unconvinced, the topic of this post was about what I see as the difficulties polygamy creates for the church. I asked at the end if allowing women to be sealed other husbands if the first dies would help with the problem at all. You claim that shared marriage “is not as sexist and unfair to women,” so I guess you do see such an allowance as an improvement.” Oct 30, 06:12
- on A Standard Polygamy Narrative?: “The only way your proposed shared marriage sometimes called polyamory makes polygamy more palatable is that it is not as sexist and unfair to women. It doesn’t resolve anything because the doctrine and history still stand the same, Unrehabilitated. Why try? It was a bad doctrine that hurt people and the church and drags down the current church. Let it go. Don’t try to justify it or reform it. Since it was wrong from the start.” Oct 30, 04:23
