The Folk Prophet

You know, it's an interesting thing isn't it. There's a balance I think, in mortality. There are 3 tiers of motivation, as I see it. The bottom level is fear of punishment. The middle level is hope for reward. The top tier is love. Ultimately we all must reach the top tier. Here's my take on it, for what it's worth. I think the Lord fully understands that we, as imperfect mortal beings, will only be able to brush the surface of what love actually is. In other words, we aren't actually capable of truly being only motivated by love. If we could, then awesome. And after a lifetime, perhaps some of us may start to get there. But mostly...not so much I think. Take home teaching as an example. My elders quorum pres is constantly preaching to us in terms of how we need to love our neighbors more so we'll do our home teaching. Want to guess how well that works? The bottom line is, I don't love my neighbors. Some of them I can barely stand...at first. But I do my home teaching. Why? Because I don't want to be punished and because I want reward for obedience. And...partially...because I do love the Lord and want to obey Him. I hope that last reason is the strongest. I strive for it to be. Here's the thing though. The obedience comes first. I have, surprisingly, learned to love my annoying neighbors. I have home taught them, served them, given them blessings, etc., etc., all from sheer obedience. And lo-and-behold, I find myself loving them. Amazing. This also builds the love I have for the Lord. So I agree with you, very much, but I think the Lord knows that we as mortals cannot, actually, truly love. Therefore He gives obedience to us -- accompanied by threat and promise of reward -- and by these means He teaches us love. Teaching our children to behave because of love is right on. But teaching them motivation by fear and promise of reward is important too, because just like all of us, they will fail to love perfectly in many, many instances. But they can learn to obey nonetheless.

Fear is a form of motivation. Some are motivated by one thing, others by another. God knows this. It is better to be motivated by fear of destruction than it is to be unmotivated. It is better further to be motivated by love. That does not negate the reality that threat of destruction is, without a doubt, part of the wording of God to us.

I dunno. I've always taken fear God as literal. I mean, He does tend to destroy with wrath those who displease him. In point of fact, He promises to destroy those who are wicked. I am honestly scared of that, as should we all be.

O......k.....???

I appreciated your post, however, I wanted to add a clarifying thought. What you say here is true, but not the full extent of it. This is only one of the reasons. The other reason is so the familial relationships we have here in this life will continue into the next life. So it's not just a broad Kumbaya thing that binds us all together. There is a specificity to the sealing we have with our direct families that matters very much as well.

A nice summary of agency.

That's not much of a reason. "I'm trying to gather information so I have information." The question is, what does she intend to DO with that information?

Ask the missionaries. :) Seriously, congrats. You don't need to bring your own white clothes.

It should be stated (and I think you implied this in the rest of your post) that this is because if you don't agree or don't understand a C.K. principle you won't be there anyhow, not that you'll be able to go to the C.K. anyhow and just opt out.

Reminds me of your avatar, strangely.

What a lucky girl. Anyhow, sure, it may work for now (depends on what one considers a "working" marriage). But I question this attitude in anyone. A refusal to sacrifice but a willingness to accept the reward. I'll take the good but all the bad goes to my wife? This is problematic and will undoubtedly lead to major problems unless this guy grows up.

Age is irrelevant except for, obviously, in certain aspects that relate to the sexual side of marriage. There is no reason ever for an 8 year old to be married, I think it safe to say. In today's world and society, we can generally look to 18 as the proper youngest age, though I wouldn't argue against a 17 year old marrying under just the right circumstances. However, beyond that, it ties into age only in that it ties into maturity, and in that it ties into selflessness, which in itself is intricately linked to maturity. Two selfless young'uns can make a solid go of it. Two selfish (or even one) old fogies are likely as not to fail.

*points to own nose, points to estradling75* The thing is, what constitutes "popular opinion"? If the entire church membership were actually surveyed, I'm pretty sure most of these issues would not show a popular vote for change. If you include the nation or the world...different story. News stories try and sell it as if it is a change in the tide and popular opinion swings a certain way. Where they say things like, "hundreds of women met in front of the conference hall" as if hundreds had any meaning against the numbers in the church. Even thousands has no meaning as to popularity. (That being said, I definitely see the influence of such agendas bleeding more and more into the memberships). Also, there is a distinct difference between the examples you gave and actual doctrinal changes. It doesn't matter how many people vote to rescind the law of chastity, for example. It ain't happening. :) Still, as you point out, it is to our sorrow, a sad day indeed, when the church memberships votes themselves right out of blessings and joy because of petty, mortal foolishness.

The desire to have no kids is indicative, IMO, of deeper issues that would be highly concerning to me. And, frankly, to blow off any commandment based on the natural man is problematic. There may be "good" reasons that he/she does not want kids. If they are, indeed, "good", then consideration is in order. If they are, as I suspect, purely based in selfishness, I would run in the other direction as far as marriage goes. Intentionally marrying someone who you know is motivated by selfish desires is asking for trouble.

This may be the first time I've 100% agreed with anatess.

Not yet, at least. See Pam's original post for what I mean by this. I also wonder about the motivations here. My interpretation is that the objective most certainly is/will be to try and have doctrine altered via popular vote. Moreover, there is an underlying and obvious implication to this sort of survey that reads -- what people think about doctrine matters as to the value of that doctrine. What people think about doctrine does not have any bearing on it's value. So my opinion is clear, I'll also add the "policy" in addition to doctrine. Policy and/or doctrinal determination by survey. I was reading a few articles yesterday about a "flood of requests" and a petition going to the church concerning feminist issues, including changes to the sealing policy to make it equal for women. I very much suspect that a survey like this is to help put weight behind such petitions.

Ha ha. Shotgun wedding!

Which would be great if mainstream Mormonism could actually say what they mean, as in, "The Lord leads this church." I suppose I could have written that in the open essay at the end. But I was lazy.

I agree. After I took it I regretted taking it. I feel like I've contributed to something I shouldn't have now. I really just wanted to see what the questions were. Oh well...there goes my temple worthiness. Heheh. Actually, I'm not really that concerned. Even if the survey shows (via out-of-context or via truthful opinions) that everyone feels policy should change it won't matter. I'm confident the Lord leads the church in spite of popular opinion.

Ah...doctrinal determination by survey. Just the way the Lord intended it to be. I took it. As with most surveys it limited some answers based on the bias of the survey creator. Like, for example, the question, "The apostles and prophets of the LDS church are always right". Because of the inclusion of the word "always" I had to select "strongly disagree" even though I don't feel that accurately reflects my p.o.v. Same sort of problem with "Do you agree with the current sealing policy (see statement directly above this question) that allows only men and not women to be sealed to more than one spouse?" I put "no opinion" on this because it was the closest, but that isn't really true at all. I have a strong opinion. But it isn't that the policy is right or wrong. It's that it's none of my freaking business. Of course neither of these two questions had the "other"/fill in the blank options.

Seminarysnoozer, Once more you're not relating like to like. You're comparing different things. Neither animal sacrifice nor circumcision, nor the word-of-wisdom, nor the need to do our home and visiting teaching, nor many other things have anything to do with the sealing power or eternal relationships. You can't use something that has no bearing on eternal relationships as an example of something that is intricately tied to the sealing power and eternal relationships. You're doing the same sort of non-sequitur comparing when speaking of stewardships. You're explanation of stewardships is sound. Your application of it to eternal relationships and the sealing power is not sound. Because many things in this life are given us as a stewardship it does not mean that all things in this life are a stewardship. Comparing diseases we have in this life to eternal marriage is another non-sequitur. That is not a compelling argument because it is comparing things that are not alike in any way. People with down syndrome won't have down syndrome in the next life, and so that means eternal marriages aren't actually eternal? Really? You do the same thing speaking of your father. Age has nothing to do with it. It's a straw man. Your father in this life will absolutely remain your father in the next life. You have a very strange perception of what eternal families are. You twist one discussion of numbers to mean something entirely. We're talking about men to women ratio in the Celestial Kingdom. You're response has nothing to do with that. Hopefully most people can see that. Clearly when I say that debating from a numbers standpoint doesn't get us anywhere I am talking about this ratio. It was a direct response to classylady saying that we had no evidence there would be more women than men. And your response has no weight against that point. Moreover, no one has said that having more wives is "better". I certainly didn't say that. You're arguing against something that no one is contending. Your argument is only sound IF we assume a whole bunch of stuff that no one is assuming, and no one really knows. So, you know, another straw man. You build up an argument that no one is arguing and the tear it back down. Way to go. You beat that scarecrow up something fierce! You are constantly using logical fallacies in your points: -Using the idea of unfaithful spouses/covenant breakers to support the idea that all sealings don't actually hold any meaning. -Using principles of service to downplay marriage as an eternal institution. -Contending that the number of child deaths under age 8 proves polygamy invalid or has anything to do with the law of marriage or the sealing power. -Quoting one point (McKonkie saying children will be married) to draw a completely different conclusion (no sealing ordinances must be done for children) -Taking arguments that polygamous marriages will remain in the eternities and responding to them as if the argument were that ALL must live polygamy. -Ignoring the principles of agency and choice that logically apply to all, including children who've died young. (including a presumption of arrangement in opposition to agency) -Conflating ordinances and principles (sealing power, marriage sealing, parent/child sealing, etc...) -As a subset of this, making claims that one sealing = all sealings And on and on it goes.... You continue to throw out these arguments based on logical fallacies. I don't know if you really can't see this or if you're just stubborn because it is an emotional issue for you. Regardless, it renders the discussion with you pointless. I have said it before, and I have no problem repeating it: YOU MAY BE RIGHT. I can accept that because I accept that we DO NOT KNOW. But, if we're going to have a reasonable discussion it behooves us to utilize logical arguments. Emotion based arguments are less than useless. Comparing things that are unrelated has no value. Building up straw men and tearing them down doesn't support anything. And so, I think, I will bow out of direct discussion with you on this particular matter. Don't misunderstand me to be upset. I am not. But I am weary of the useless non-sequitur approach. I will say this. Acceptance of plural marriage is no different than acceptance of any principle of the gospel. The Lord asks nothing less than our complete willingness to surrender entirely to Him and His will. Anything less than that is insufficient to salvation. No matter what issue any of us has with any given principle, it does not matter. We submit our wills to His or we fail the test. That is true of all principles, commandments, ordinances, directions, and counsel. In the end, it does not matter if plural marriage is required or in any way part of the Celestial Kingdom. What matters is that if it is, then we embrace it regardless of our personal views. We should all be in a state where anything commanded of the Lord we accept and follow, even if those commandments apply to eternity. Moreover, we should be in a state that we can say so. "If the Lord commands, I will obey." <-- that includes polygamy, dying, giving all our money and things up, giving up our spouses (even eternally), taking in more spouses (even eternally), or even, as Abraham was willing to do, sacrificing our own children. We accept these things, oft times, not because we understand them or even agree with them (who could ever understand or agree with killing one's own child?) but because we TRUST the Lord implicitly and rely wholly upon He who is mighty to save.

D&C 132:65 My understanding is what the church teaches. ordinance covenant Commandment doesn't need a church definition. It's pretty obvious. Anything that is commanded. For which part of my statement? Actually, David and Solomon are perfect examples of what you're talking about concerning the ratification of the Holy Spirit of Promise. They did not keep their covenants, therefore their marriages will not be valid because they have lost their exaltation. At least with David we know of that with surety. (D&C 132:9 ...therefore [David] hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.) We can't pit D&C/BOM scriptures against each other. They both have to be true. The D&C is very specific and clear. David did not sin in anything but with Uriah's wife. It also clarifies more generically that Solomon did not sin save in those things not received by God. So when the BOM calls their actions an abomination, clearly it must mean it is because of Uriah's wife and the things Solomon received not by God's hand. Unless one wants to try and contend that something can be an abomination and not be a sin. But your point is off track from the original intent of why I brought David and Solomon up. You said that the first wife must do the choosing and that the bible examples support this. I say that the two examples of the wife choosing in the Bible are insufficient to support this idea as an overall principle. My primary support for that is the D&C's specification of the wife's approval, but not requiring her actual choosing. The David and Solomon thing is mildly supportive of the idea in that it speaks of them receiving multiple wives from the hand of God and from prophets rather than from their other wives. I did not bring them up to support evidence of an eternal example of what we should do. I do not disagree with you that not every marriage sealed on earth will be sealed in heaven. But every marriage that is sealed on earth, whereupon those sealed then keep their covenants, WILL be sealed in heaven. And that is easily supportable. You seem to be arguing that even if we keep our covenants that the Lord (via the Holy Ghost) can simply randomly say, "Never mind...that sealing doesn't count." But the Lord has promised and He is bound when we do what He says. I agree with the words you're saying here, but somehow I feel like the implication behind what you mean doesn't gel. Perhaps I'm misreading your. What needs to be addressed and be clear is the criteria set for "the requirements of Celestial". That criteria is the keeping of covenants. D&C 132:19

Only interesting. No worries here. There is certainly a tradition of that in some of the current polygamous branches. But that is not correct scripturally, or according to the way Joseph taught others about the principle. According to D&C 132, the first wife must approve of the second, and so forth. But there is no rule that she do the actual choosing. Joseph, when bringing the principle to others, taught them to go out and find them a second, etc., wife. Joseph himself certainly went out and found his other wives. Emma, generally, would have no part of it except on two specific occasions. D&C 132 says, "if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent,..." (emphasis mine). That being said, I can accept that perhaps a policy came into play (though I would need more than an anecdotal journal entry as evidence). And if that was the church policy at the time, then following it was proper and right. That does not make it the moral standard of God, however. Yes, if the ordinance is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise then it will not be valid in the next life. But that sealing is promised to those who are just and true (D&C 76:53). The obligation to seal it is based on the righteousness and obedience of those who have received the ordinances. If they live up to their commitments, then yes, absolutely, the Holy Ghost is obligated to seal it up. I respect your great-grandfather's personal views, but I don't accept that as a valid source. Historical evidence shows clearly that the first wife generally stood as witness to the new marriage when possible. In the case of Joseph, for example, that was not the case most the time. The marriages were separate. Emma wasn't even aware ofttimes. Genetic diversity is not one of the known reasons given for plural marriage, however. I have no confusion between the two. Nor am I sure wherein you think there is confusion. As far as it not being commanded that everyone enter into marriage in this life...that's argumentative. One could just as easily say that it's not commanded that everyone enter into baptism in this life. Those who know of the commandments to receive ordinances and have the opportunity to do so will be held accountable to that commandment. No one will be held accountable for anything that they don't know of or have no opportunity for. That doesn't negate the commandment. Actually, we only have two examples of this, Abraham's second wife and Jacob's wives. We have David and Solomon and many others where there is no information on how the marriages were arranged. Per David, according to D&C 132 "David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife." At any rate, lack of evidence is not evidence.

So I was just looking at news related to LDS issues and saw a headline, "Does Mormon modesty mantra reduce women to sex objects?" There are many other similar headlines (some much more direct in their condemnation of modesty teachings.) I know there have been some debates back and forth on this. But calling modesty evil is a fine example of calling good evil and evil good, all rolled up into a nice, little controversial issue.

Except that we cannot, absolutely no way, have any idea of the numbers. We do not know who will and won't make it (with the exception of children who have died). And contrary to what has been implied, we do not know that the majority of those in the Celestial Kingdom will be children who have died young. There are many, many billions more who have died without the gospel who may well accept it. I believe there are quotes that support the idea that most will. But we have no idea what ratio of men and women will accept. Moreover, the logic your using is backwards sexism. The fact that men may be more likely to deny the gospel does not mean that my being a man makes me more likely to deny the gospel any more than the fact that men are generally physically stronger than women means that my being a man means I'm physically stronger than all women. Nonetheless, it is an undeniable fact that men are, as a group, physically stronger than women. And it may well be that men are, as a group, spiritually more likely to deny the gospel. God doesn't make men or women righteous. That is up to our own agency. But He knows the numbers of who will and won't accept the gospel. We do not. Therefore, debating from a numbers standpoint doesn't get us anywhere because we have too many unknowns.