The Folk Prophet

You shouldn't capitalize church when referring to me. It took me like 4 read-throughs to realize you weren't speaking of The Church. Haha. Edit: which is even funnier in that, technically, a name (such as the usage I have of church) should be capitalized, whereas when speaking of the or a church, it should not. Sorry. I guess I didn't think it through when I set up my username. :)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, it could be worked out in theory in the millennium and all polygamous marriages could be reassigned and the work redone. In theory. However, I have to ask then, why bother making polygamous marriages "sealings" at all then? Moreover, I think it highly offensive to those who accepted and lived and learned to appreciate and love plural marriage, who struggled and suffered through to finally understand and find the joy of it, learned to love their eternal companion in the same way monogamous couples love their eternal companion, trusting that they will be together forever, as "sealing" implies, only to then have that all ripped away in the next life. Clearly sealings could be rearranged. But why would they? Just because you don't like the idea? Moreover, if sealing is sealing, as you have seemed to imply, then why do we need to be sealed to more than one of our children. Sure, our children need to be sealed to someone. But it doesn't matter who. My wife and I have been unable to have children. So to make it fair, we'll just be able to be assigned one of your children in the next life. Alright with you, right? Because it doesn't really matter as long as we're sealed to someone? My point, and where we seem to disagree, is in the idea that who you're sealed to doesn't matter. It does. And a marriage sealing is not just a covenant with the Lord. It is a covenant with each other. I don't think any church leaders have ever taught that who we are sealed to doesn't really matter.

But it is clear from various other sources (Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, and the like) that he did teach this idea, along with other conflicting reports of resurrected children growing up in the Millennium.

Simply look to the explanation verses in 2 Nephi 31 that follow the "fulfill all righteousness" part.

I agree with you on the basic premise, but not on the baptismal ordinance specifically. I think it fairly safe to assume that baptism will never be necessary for them. The statements by Joseph Smith you refer to are ambiguous at best. But he also made statements that children would be resurrected to their child bodies and reign forever as babes on their thrones... So..... Yeah...who knows. Personally, both of those ideas don't sit well with me. I tend to think all people will be resurrected to their perfect and prime adult status. I think the children being raised in the millennium thing is one of those faux-doctrines that persists because it's comforting (and rightly so) to parents who have lost children. But that's just my take. Regardless, the baptism thing...I don't think so. Are you implying they would be baptized themselves post resurrection? Because we know that is wrong (see J.F. Smith quote in prior post). So that means we would, actually, have to do baptisms for the dead for children who accepted the gospel. In which case, why wouldn't the Lord just have us do baptisms for them now? edit: moreover, the inability to make the covenant is not the reason given in Moroni 8. It is the no sin, hence the no need for cleansing thing.

True, but there are other quotes (I believe also somewhere buried in this mammoth thread) that tell us that children will not be denied any blessings they would have lost by early death because of that death. So I think we can safely assume that the salvation of children does mean the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom and will include Celestial Marriage opportunities. :)

The problem with this theory is that it implies that if my wife left me and some other woman's husband left her, then we could be married legally but not bother with a temple sealing because the sealings from before counted. This is just not the case. So, yes, we'll agree to disagree I suppose. :) We've already had this conversation/debate, in this very thread. Polygamy is sexist. There's no getting around it. Nothing in the McConke quote precludes the children having the marriage ordinance performed for them. You are reading your own philosophies into the reason we don't do marriage ceremonies for children. Baptism is an ordinance for the washing away of sins. It is not required (and would be mockery) for children because they have no sins to wash away. Marriage, on the other hand, is something the children do not have and must receive, in the same way they needed to come to earth to receive their bodies. It would not be mockery to give them something they do not have and very much do need. The reason we do not do marriage for children is because we do not know who to seal them to. When that is revealed, we will do this work. We do, I would point out, do ordinances for children that we DO know of -- meaning that children who have died before the age of 8 are, indeed, sealed to their parents (unless they were born in the covenant). If sealing ordinances were comparable to baptism, as you are contending, then why do we seal them to their parents via work for the dead?

Hmm. I guess I translated "That's not exactly true" to mean that. I have never once claimed all sealing remain in place. Please show me where I have said this. You are misunderstanding me. I'm not sure how this is ridiculous. The church is reticent to break sealings because in the post life sealing can be broken, but they cannot be created. Any sealings that were broken in this life would remove the potential for that sealing to be chosen. By keeping the sealing in place, the wife chooses the husband with no other work needed. Still, I think that it would be a stretch to say this is the primary reason that the church is reticent to cancel sealings, so my phrasing may have implied that in this case, and certainly made it seem like I was saying it was "the" reason. It is, I think, one of the reasons. I should clarify that when I'm talking about sealings being "swapped" I mean to imply the idea of sealings being changed without work being done by persons in mortality. Per this understanding of my usage of "swapped", I stand by what I'm saying. If I'm reading you right then you are taking my meaning to include all changes to sealings, which we know will happen, which means we're talking past each other a bit via miscommunication.

A direct sealing is to a specific person. You seem to be under the impression that it's a general thing, like once you're sealed to one you're directly sealed to all. That isn't the case. Sealings are very specific to people. I am sealed to my wife. That does not make me sealed to my neighbors wife. A wife married in a polygamous sealing is sealed to that husband and that husband alone. If they are to be with someone else in the eternities, they must break that sealing and be sealed to another man. If that wife is already dead, then that change would have to be done vicariously via work for the dead in the temple. The sealing is not a general thing that can just be swapped to any ol' person.

Very interesting. I would say, yes. We are not capable of true worship.

It does not matter that you didn't use the word "sealing power". I was the one who said sealing gave reason to suspect polygamy post life. So I'm the one who's meaning on it matters. When I say you are confused, I'm saying that you are talking about something different than what I mean. You telling me I'm confused back is fine, but I'm not confused about what I mean. I'm saying that you are confused about what I mean. I am talking about sealing power. Moreoever, marriage sealing is a form of sealing, but it is not the all encompassing meaning of sealing. It is a specific ordinance that utilizes sealing. There are many other forms and usages of sealing too. But in each case, each ordinance, each covenant, what the "sealing" part of it means is that what is bound here on earth is also bound in heaven. Yes, the marriage sealing is an ordinance. Obviously. Yes, it is the new and everlasting covenant. But that is beyond the point that I made, which is, that the "sealing" part of it is not a covenant or an ordinance. The sealing part attends the covenant and the ordinance to ensure that the covenant and ordinance extends into the next life. You are contending that it doesn't, necessarily, extend into the next life. But it does. Wherein does "only once" fit into the criteria for something being a saving ordinance? Can you source that? Yes, we only need to be baptized once, etc... But that is not because it's a saving ordinance. Anyhow, I'm not arguing, in any regard, that plural marriage is required for salvation. I'm simply making a case that there is good reason for us to suspect that there will be cases of plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom. ??? -- Not sure what you're point is. I believe my point is contingent on this point -- all sealing ordinances are to be done either in mortality or vicariously by others in mortality. I'm not sure where you get this from. I'm not saying anything about blessings that came from or didn't come from polygamy. I don't disagree with your points on covenants here. But the sealing power is not a covenant. Even if one took it as a covenant (and I'm not insistent that it cannot be viewed that way) it would still be a covenant (or power) that ties us to the eternities and is not for this life. Sealing is for the next world. The conditions of sealing, as set by God, are the keeping of our covenants. The promise given is that what has been bound on earth will continue in the eternities. Either way, I find it funny that you think me closed minded on our being blessed by covenants. As near as I can tell I've said nothing to allow such a conclusion to be drawn. This isn't accurate entirely. Yes, we will all be sealed together. But not by marriage. And simply being sealed by marriage does not seal us into the rest of the chain. If so, a person who was baptized and then married would have no need to be sealed to their parents or any children they had prior to being sealed in marriage. The marriage sealing is NOT the same as being sealed to parents and children. It is a different sealing. The marriage sealing is using the sealing power and applying it to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. It is applying a power to that marriage that then makes it eternal. It is for that marriage and that marriage alone. If one takes a second wife when the law of plural marriage is being commanded, and they are sealed to that wife, then that sealing applies, once more, only to that marriage. It seals that marriage as eternal. But that person would still be required to be sealed to their parents and children born outside of the covenant. Anyone attaining the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom must needs enter into the new and everlasting covenant (otherwise known as a marriage sealing). The marriage sealing is a mortal ordinance and must be performed by the living. I expect, concerning children, that the work for the dead will be part of the millennial work we know will be done. Yes. This is exactly what I'm saying. But I'm not the one saying it. The D&C sets these standards. I didn't make them up. Why arranged? Cannot your great great great great grandmother/father in said situation choose their new eternal companion? Can they then not have it revealed to those still in mortality to do that work, as it must be done, in the temple?

It is still true. Nothing you are pointing out here means that we won't need to have these ordinances worked out via mortality and work for the dead. The reason sealings remain in place even in the case of women is so that it can be worked out without doing extra sealing work. But anyone to be "sealed" to someone must have that ordinance done via mortality and work for the dead. Here's Joseph F. Smith The sealing ordinances must be done in mortality.

This was my first thought too.

Darn straight!! Heheh.

Right. This remains true across the board. Specifically, "I can see, though, where a person could have major difficulty on this particular issue. Unless you have a sure testimony of Joseph..." There are things we can address with logic, science, and historical evidence. There are things that we cannot, nor will we every likely be able to in this life. That is because, imo, the Lord wants us to rely on testimonies of faith. He could prove the gospel true if He so desired. So many anti style criticisms of the church disregard this important fact. We are to rely on faith and testimony. This is important. For the Lord to provide more sure evidence of truth would hurt His purposes. We are to come to Him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, relying upon faith, and by this means we become who we need to be. If not so, there would be no purpose in the veil of this world. We could have come down simply to gain a body but have retained a remembrance of our pre-earth life.

You are confused. The sealing power is not a covenant. It is contingent on covenants, yes. But it is the keys (held by one man on the earth at any given time) to bind in heaven what has been bound on earth. That being said, the ordinance work (including the ordinances and covenants attached to sealing) must be performed in this world by those who are in mortality. There will be no swapping around of ordinances after this life. All marriages must and will be done in this life. And, no, sealings cannot have meaning if not continued in the next life. That makes no sense at all. Eternal sealings are explicitly for the next life. The very idea that they don't have to continue in the next life flies in the face of the entire value of eternal marriages. Eternal means eternal. You're trying to say that some eternal marriages are not, actually, eternal. You're arguing that when a marriage is polygamous that "time and all eternity" really means "'til death do you part". Yes, sealings are contigent on keeping covenants. That has no bearing on the discussion. A man who is sealed to two wives, wherein they keep their covenants, will still be sealed to those wives in the next life. They will not and cannot be discarded because of your discomfort.

Regardless, you're talking about breaking sealings. As if sealings actually have no real meaning. The theology of sealings alone gives us reason to suspect.

It is a matter of curiosity. But not a matter of concern. It is the words of the Lord that matter, not the words of John. Maybe Joseph added to it. If so, I am confident that it was the Lord's will and that it is the Lord's words. I agree it would be of interest to know, but beyond that...'sall good.

Changes have never troubled me. They fall under my understanding of continuing revelation and within the scope of the church being ultimately led by the Lord. Either the Lord leads the church or He doesn't. If he does, changes to scripture are part of it. Line upon line, etc...

My opinion, for what it's worth: Weird is weird. It doesn't have to do with sheltering or homeschooling. Weird parents cause problems for their kids. (Normal parents do to, of course, as everyone is imperfect, but less so, I think.) The truth is, imo, that as the world goes further down the devil's path, what was once considered sheltering and overprotective will be the only recourse of protection. Homeschooling has been mentioned. 20 years back, homeschooling was a rather extreme choice. 20 years hence and I expect that any sane parent will be homeschooling. There are those who would claim any teaching values to children, any punishment, any discipline, etc., is overprotective sheltering. I think that it ends up being a cost/benefit thing. Are their costs to sheltering? Yes. Are the benefits? Yes. Does the one outweigh the other? I don't know.

You're saying that the Lord hasn't let us know with surety. But He has. You want to minimize the King Follet discourse. The church does not. The parts of this discourse that speak to God once being a man (the question at issue here) are oft quoted by the church. Moreover, your implication that the King Follet discourse and the scriptures saying Christ does what He saw the father do are the ONLY two sources of this doctrine is false. You are disregarding many other prophet and apostle statements supporting the idea. This concept was clearly taught by Brigham Young, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McKonkie, etc. You make it out as if these teaching don't exist, as if the only statement ever made on the matter was the King Follet discourse. That is simply not true. The latest church essay on this subject makes the it clear. Yes, it can be argued that not all Mormons believe this. But what Mormon's believe does not define doctrine. Doctrine is defined by the prophets and apostles, as clarified here. Obviously many details concerning the matter have not been revealed. There are statements that have been made that we can argue back and forth as to whether they constitute "doctrine" or not. But the prime question here as to God once being a man...this is doctrine.

A new criterion for doctrinal determinations. I love it!!

Lies about the meaning of love.

You may have heard the phrase (or something similar) that faith is an action word. To put this more scripturally, we have James 2:17 And James 2:20 A lot of people take this to mean that faith must be accompanied by works as a separate thing. But it is, I believe, saying that works are a part of faith and that without works there is no faith at all. This understanding makes the whole saved by faith or works discussion pretty irrelevant. We are, indeed, saved by faith and faith alone. But without works, there is no faith. It's really quite simple. Point being, if you have no works, you have no faith. Faith IS works. A choice to act is a choice of faith. They cannot be separated. Giving up a job to not work on Sundays is faith. It is a work that is based on a hope that is substantiated by something that is believed. One believes they will be blessed by keeping the Sabbath holy. They hope for the blessings that will attend. They believe that working on the Sabbath is not keeping it holy. So they act. This is faith. Same with having children. A person believes that having children will result in blessings. They hope that they will be blessed by prioritizing that because they believe it. So they act. Faith is the substance of things hoped for. This means that it is the foundation of our hope. Faith comes first. No faith = no hope. And faith without works is dead. No works = no faith. We have faith, so we have hope, so we act. If we do not act it is because we do not hope because we have no faith.

The church has a new article on Becoming Like God This article should put to rest at least the core doctrine on the matter. Whereas there are extended theories that it does not put to rest, we can more confidently affirm these points as doctrinal now. My favorite paragraph: