Multiple wives?

[Seminarysnoozer]

52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, receive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

What are the "many things" referred to? Churches? Men? Cities? Revelations? Those are all possible answers. But section 132 is about marriage. So in the context of marriage (and the preceding verse) the many things can only be children and/or wives. Also Joseph was about to die, so it would be silly to make him a ruler over things he would have no use for in the next life.

So the implication is that Joseph had many wives given to him because he was faithful over a few things and therefore worthy to be a ruler over many things. Clearly however worthy he is, Heavenly Father is more worthy than him.

Again, just opinion.

Or, it could imply that a marriage is required to be a ruler over many things. That doesn't mean it has to be multiple marriages. Nothing like that is said here.

[Seminarysnoozer]

No we do not practice polygamy in this life now. It has never been revealed to be a wrong practice just a practice we arent to do at this time. If you do not believe we distance ourselves, how we discuss it, from polygamy then keep an eye on the topic, here and other places, for awhile.

We really arent distanced from animal sacrifice all that far. The sacrament is very similar in purpose. Both are done in remembrance of the Saviors sacrifices are they not? One future and one past.

I dont think we need to discuss polygamy particularly. It does keep coming up though.

I kinda thought most forums were about opinions. Yes some opinions are backed by scripture but even those opinions are not doctrine. The scripture is but not the opinion derived from it.

Now my opinion on whether God has more than one wife is hmm maybe. He might. He might not. I see no reason He can't be.

I don't see a reason why He couldn't have a tail either, He could hide it under His robes and it wouldn't really change us being in His likeness. But, then it wouldn't really serve any purpose either. .... kinda like polygamy. We don't know of any purpose God would have for that practice.

There are a lot of things we could speculate He has, but that is why I was surprised someone would make such a bold statement in Sunday School about it.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I believe that every person, who can be held accountable, not just the intellectually gifted, should be able to understand the gospel. Otherwise that is just not fair.

It really is simple.

Why is that not fair? We are not judged on the sum total of our knowledge at the end of this life by itself. We will be judged by what we were given and what we did with what we are given. Some will be required to understand a lot more than the rest of us because of the intellectual prowess they have been temporarily given in this life. Just like someone who was given a body that has a propensity for stone masonry might be asked to help build a temple, whereas another person given a temporary gift would help in another way, like be a teacher.

Intellectually gifted is just another temporary gift. How much do you think we learned before we came here in the pre-mortal existence. I don't know exactly how much but I believe it to be a lot more than anyone has ever learned or will ever learn in this life. The things that have not been learned in the pre-mortal existence pertain to experience in how to make correct choices using faith and what is given.

In other words, not everybody has to understand the gospel. So, it can still be complicated. To some it is given to believe in the testimony of others.

[Guest Magen_Avot]

I don't see a reason why He couldn't have a tail either, He could hide it under His robes and it wouldn't really change us being in His likeness. But, then it wouldn't really serve any purpose either. .... kinda like polygamy. We don't know of any purpose God would have for that practice.

There are a lot of things we could speculate He has, but that is why I was surprised someone would make such a bold statement in Sunday School about it.

The only thing I've found that is in my own library is a statement by Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. XV, p. 319 and also quoted in the docrine and covenants commentary (1978 ed) p. 826 discussing D&C 132:16

Speaking of LDS who do not enter into the covenant of marriage, "They might not have forfeited the right to have wives by which only they could have a posterity in the eternal worlds.

I don't prescribe to taking everyword from general authorities as gospel truth because there is a lot of incorrect weird stuff floating around and I prefer sound doctrines anchored in scripture.

One can draw their own conclusion, but you are right that the statement made in SS should have been kept to themselves. I would have enjoyed the challenge of making them reveal their source and backing it up with scripture (or shutting the heck up).

Really a good thread.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Hmmm,... interesting.

Your choice of words asserts my agreement with you . While I'm not sure if this is your purpose and whether or not I agree, my inner self seems to always resist situations that seem this way to me which is why I mention it. If I'm wrong I apologize.

At any rate, I would easily respond to, "Do you feel entering into plural marriage is required to enter into the Celestial Kingdom or exaltation?" or something like that. My answer would be 'I don't beleive that to be the case'.

I've never heard of plural wives being a requirement for exaltation. . I’ve never read or heard of that requirement before nor read it in any book of scripture. I hope that’s not what you read into my previous answers.

More direct to what I think you were asking: Is it (polygamy) on the road TO exaltation,… not for me but for those who legitimately entered into polygamy, yes, they already have (assuming they are actually now ON the road to exaltation). Will it be a part of exalted life? I believe it will be, yes. But that will be in a perfect world and dare I say,… heavenly? (sorry, I love puns). In my current mortal frame of mind though I really hope I don’t have to. Because... I. Don’t. Like. It!!!

These are my opinions of course. Did I answer your query?

Thank you for your opinion.

I guess what I was trying to say or ask was that plural marriage itself is not on the road to exaltation as much as obedience to commandments are. There are some things required for exaltation whether in this life or the next that everyone has to do and then there are things that certain people have to do because they were asked to do it, by an authorized person who is asking.

If I have a cancerous lesion on my skin I would probably want to cut it out. That is an unpleasant and painful thing to ask of someone but it could save their life. Luckily, in the next life there is no cancer. ...in my opinion. We shouldn't and I don't think any of us would, assume that because we were asked to do something unpleasant or painful or for that matter something pleasurable, that it translates to it being an eternal issue.

I believe there to be situational commandments. If that situation is no longer in play, then the commandment is no longer applicable. I am not seeing anything of the eternal situation, that we know about, that would suggest that plural marriage is an eternal principle. Unless, someone has such a source for me to ponder.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Speaking of LDS who do not enter into the covenant of marriage, "They might not have forfeited the right to have wives by which only they could have a posterity in the eternal worlds.

I don't prescribe to taking everyword from general authorities as gospel truth because there is a lot of incorrect weird stuff floating around and I prefer sound doctrines anchored in scripture.

Thanks, but note the plural "They" would have made it a different sentence if it would have been 'They might not have forfeited the right to have a wife by which ...' Because it is not talking about multiple people being married to one particular wife. So, the plural "They" is put with the plural "wives" to make it grammatically correct if talking about a group of people. By keeping it plural both "they" and "wives", it could still apply to a group of people who were all in monogamous relationships.

That would have been a really specific quote if it said, 'That individual' in place of "They".

[Guest Magen_Avot]

Thank you for your opinion.

I guess what I was trying to say or ask was that plural marriage itself is not on the road to exaltation as much as obedience to commandments are. There are some things required for exaltation whether in this life or the next that everyone has to do and then there are things that certain people have to do because they were asked to do it, by an authorized person who is asking.

If I have a cancerous lesion on my skin I would probably want to cut it out. That is an unpleasant and painful thing to ask of someone but it could save their life. Luckily, in the next life there is no cancer. ...in my opinion. We shouldn't and I don't think any of us would, assume that because we were asked to do something unpleasant or painful or for that matter something pleasurable, that it translates to it being an eternal issue.

I believe there to be situational commandments. If that situation is no longer in play, then the commandment is no longer applicable. I am not seeing anything of the eternal situation, that we know about, that would suggest that plural marriage is an eternal principle. Unless, someone has such a source for me to ponder.

I certainly agree that plural marriage itself is not on the road to exaltation (or mandated for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom) and that there are commandments that only prove obedience and not an eternal principle of itself or are “situational commandments” as you stated.

I also get that you don’t feel that plural marriage is an eternal principle, but it’s here I guess that I don’t understand. If a man has (for the sake of conversation) two wives (one had passed away before the marriage to number two) and each of those marriages were sealed for time and all eternity, how do you explain that this is not an eternal principle? Will the second one have to take a cab to the next level down?(Notwithstanding D&C 107). Wouldn't this require an even number of exalted pairs? And remember, I have no love for plural marriage either.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Magen_Avot

[Guest Magen_Avot]

Thanks, but note the plural "They" would have made it a different sentence if it would have been 'They might not have forfeited the right to have a wife by which ...' Because it is not talking about multiple people being married to one particular wife. So, the plural "They" is put with the plural "wives" to make it grammatically correct if talking about a group of people. By keeping it plural both "they" and "wives", it could still apply to a group of people who were all in monogamous relationships.

That would have been a really specific quote if it said, 'That individual' in place of "They".

I disagree, but I understand how you are able to interpret it with contemporary rules of grammer. Are you that sure that Parley was playing the same game? But like I said, it was the only statement I could find in my possession, and even I wouldn't use it as empirical proof for other reasons. Still, it was a good argument.

Are you sure you were snoozing in seminary? ... and you realize I'm arguing 'for' something I'm internally against?

Edited October 20, 2011 by Magen_Avot

[annewandering]

Why is that not fair? We are not judged on the sum total of our knowledge at the end of this life by itself. We will be judged by what we were given and what we did with what we are given. Some will be required to understand a lot more than the rest of us because of the intellectual prowess they have been temporarily given in this life. Just like someone who was given a body that has a propensity for stone masonry might be asked to help build a temple, whereas another person given a temporary gift would help in another way, like be a teacher.

Intellectually gifted is just another temporary gift. How much do you think we learned before we came here in the pre-mortal existence. I don't know exactly how much but I believe it to be a lot more than anyone has ever learned or will ever learn in this life. The things that have not been learned in the pre-mortal existence pertain to experience in how to make correct choices using faith and what is given.

In other words, not everybody has to understand the gospel. So, it can still be complicated. To some it is given to believe in the testimony of others.

We need to go back to the word understand. Do you feel that those who are more gifted intellectually are required to prove their faith by deep investigation of gospel principles? This is how those will be judged? I must have gotten hung up on the idea that faith had nothing to do with intelligence but more with a persons spiritual state.

We never learn one little iota of faith by deep investigation. We learn faith by prayer and desire. Study is more for knowledge but is not required for salvation no matter how smart or dumb we are. Christ said for us to be as the little children. Isnt this what He meant?

We make correct choices by faith, not by deep study. If not then correct choices mean nothing.

I doubt very much God has a tail. We dont so why would He?

Its interesting to wonder if there is a reason to polygamy as related to God. Maybe when He was mortal his first wife died and He remarried. Maybe polygamy was practiced then. What exactly would prevent Him from having more than one wife? I am not fond of polygamy but on the other hand wouldnt mind someone who loved to clean house around. j/k Still its not something I would want to do but I am not everyone and in our culture it has been looked down on from before I was born so didnt grow up thinking it was fine.

[Seminarysnoozer]

We need to go back to the word understand. Do you feel that those who are more gifted intellectually are required to prove their faith by deep investigation of gospel principles? This is how those will be judged? I must have gotten hung up on the idea that faith had nothing to do with intelligence but more with a persons spiritual state.

We never learn one little iota of faith by deep investigation. We learn faith by prayer and desire. Study is more for knowledge but is not required for salvation no matter how smart or dumb we are. Christ said for us to be as the little children. Isnt this what He meant?

We make correct choices by faith, not by deep study. If not then correct choices mean nothing.

I doubt very much God has a tail. We dont so why would He?

Its interesting to wonder if there is a reason to polygamy as related to God. Maybe when He was mortal his first wife died and He remarried. Maybe polygamy was practiced then. What exactly would prevent Him from having more than one wife? I am not fond of polygamy but on the other hand wouldnt mind someone who loved to clean house around. j/k Still its not something I would want to do but I am not everyone and in our culture it has been looked down on from before I was born so didnt grow up thinking it was fine.

That was my point, that for everyone it is different. You can't make a blanket statement about knowledge other than whatever level of knowledge God wants an individual to obtain is the amount that is required. But see, that is different for everyone.

Faith is based in some level of knowledge, you can't separate the two. Overall, though, I agree with the idea that ultimately what we are judged in is how we act in faith. Knowledge, though allows us to have faith in more things. It allows us to have more stewardship and to show our heart's desire. For some, it could be the preparation that is needed to perform a certain duty or calling to meet God's will. Think about missionaries spending two months in the MTC. If it was all faith alone and no knowledge, there would be no need for them to go to class for two months to get up to speed in language and gospel study.

Lets say, as an example, God had in mind a calling for a couple to be a senior couple missionaries to China one day. But that couple, for multiple reasons, didn't study in school going way back to their early years in school and so did not become financially secure enough to think about an early retirement nor feel capable enough to study a foreign language to submit their papers to serve a full time mission as a couple. This is just a hypothetical situation, but as we learn about the consequences of all of our choices come judgement day, I believe there will be many things that will relate to the level of knowledge we have that we did not meet what was expected of us, in some form or another. There isn't a single mark that all of us have to achieve, it is up to us individually to find out what God expects of us, through prayer etc. Some of those expectations do pertain to knowledge but not for everyone. Opportunities for service and carrying out God's work definitely require knowledge, not just faith. Putting on the armor of God sometimes requires knowledge too.

To be as little children, means to be able to listen to the spirit and not be prideful, it does not relate to the level of one's knowledge other than it is harder for a person who is learned to remain humble, it does not mean to be ignorant.

Faith is strengthened by the right kind of knowledge. The more stories of righteousness I can fill my brain with, the more likely I will remain faithful. This is why we go to church every week even though we tend to talk about the same things over and over. If I fill my brain with unrighteous thoughts then my faith could dwindle and darken as my desire changes towards those things. Knowledge relates to faith in that way, as well.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I certainly agree that plural marriage itself is not on the road to exaltation (or mandated for the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom) and that there are commandments that only prove obedience and not an eternal principle of itself or are “situational commandments” as you stated.

I also get that you don’t feel that plural marriage is an eternal principle, but it’s here I guess that I don’t understand. If a man has (for the sake of conversation) two wives (one had passed away before the marriage to number two) and each of those marriages were sealed for time and all eternity, how do you explain that this is not an eternal principle? Will the second one have to take a cab to the next level down?(Notwithstanding D&C 107). Wouldn't this require an even number of exalted pairs? And remember, I have no love for plural marriage either.

These are great questions. I think we have to ponder about these things as the answers aren't really that clear. Let me remind you though that there are billions of people that will be in the Celestial Kingdom that did not have an opportunity to marry in this life.

Think about all who died before the age of 8. Think about those who have Down's syndrome where the prevalence amongst males is slightly higher than females about 125:100 ratio. Down's occurs in about 1 out of every 1000 live births. If you look at the population today of 6.97 billion people on the earth, if my math is correct, that means there are 6 million, 970 thousand people automatically in the celestial kingdom, the majority of which are male. And if my math is correct, there are about 59 million deaths before the age of 8 for our current population alone (this isn't going back all the years through the history of the world).

So, now we have roughly 65 million people with close to the same ratio of men to women in the Celestial Kingdom for our era alone, where the number of people in the church is just over 14 million, just to put that into perspective. ... and this isn't adding all the other diseases that cause a person to qualify for automatic Celestial Kingdom status.

I don't think there is going to be a shortage of pairs.

[garryw]

Or, it could imply that a marriage is required to be a ruler over many things. That doesn't mean it has to be multiple marriages. Nothing like that is said here.

if you ignore the entire context of section 132 and also verse 52 you can make that argument. but the context of 132 is very specific. the historical background is very specific.

Hyrum was concerned with Emma's anti-Joseph's-polygamy position and persueded Joseph to record the revelation he has previously received and show it to Emma. Joseph didn't need a revelation to institute or defend monogamy. That was standard practice. Although 132 is also about monogamy, verse 52 is about polygamy, and it specifically leads into 53. You can't separate 52 and 53. In fact you really cant isolate any verse in section 132 and ignore the rest if the intent is to understand the revelation.

[Seminarysnoozer]

if you ignore the entire context of section 132 and also verse 52 you can make that argument. but the context of 132 is very specific. the historical background is very specific.

Hyrum was concerned with Emma's anti-Joseph's-polygamy position and persueded Joseph to record the revelation he has previously received and show it to Emma. Joseph didn't need a revelation to institute or defend monogamy. That was standard practice. Although 132 is also about monogamy, verse 52 is about polygamy, and it specifically leads into 53. You can't separate 52 and 53. In fact you really cant isolate any verse in section 132 and ignore the rest if the intent is to understand the revelation.

I am not separating the two versus. Verse 52 tells Emma to accept all those that are pure. Verse 53 in turn, is directed to Joseph, not Emma. And it says that if he is faithful that he will be ruler over many things. That is a statement that says if we are faithful we will be ruler over many things, the same promise that is given to everyone. There is nothing there that says that Joseph will have many wives in the next life. It just says that if he is faithful to the commandments given in this life that he will be a ruler over many things. We could say that about any commandment given. Yes, this is specifically talking about this commandment but unless you can say that "ruler over many things" only applies to this commandment I don't think you can over interpret that as meaning the "multiple things" applies to wives. (and frankly, I think I would be offended by the scriptures calling women "things") That is a misread into what is being said there.

[Guest]

Nor, garry, are men to be rulers over women, as much as you might hate us and wish it to be so.

[garryw]

Nor, garry, are men to be rulers over women, as much as you might hate us and wish it to be so.

holy cow. you're playing the victim card here, and attempting to put words in my mouth, is childish.

are there any other sins you would like to accuse me of while you are at it? it's pretty easy on the internet to toss out allegations.

[garryw]

Verse 53 in turn, is directed to Joseph, not Emma. And it says that if he is faithful that he will be ruler over many things.

That's not true. the word "if" does not appear in verse 53. Look at the text "he hath been faithful". The verb hath is past tense. You are replacing the word hath with the word if to suit yourself, and you remaking of the verse to better fit what you would prefer it to say.

Also verse 53 is clearly directed at Emma. Starting with verse 51 and ending with verse 56, the revelation is directed at Emma by name. In verse 57 the revelation is directed back at Joseph by name.

[Guest]

I'm not sure what I'm playing "victim" of since I don't know you in real life. I've just noticed your marked disdain toward women, and I think that's clouding your interpretation of that particular passage.

[Suzie]

I've never heard of plural wives being a requirement for exaltation. .

President Brigham Young was a strong believer that Plural Marriage was necessary for exaltation. He clearly said that the only men who can become Gods are those who enter into polygamy. Now, like anything else in Church history who will point out whether he was right or merely stating his opinion?

[bytebear]

President Brigham Young was a strong believer that Plural Marriage was necessary for exaltation. He clearly said that the only men who can become Gods are those who enter into polygamy. Now, like anything else in Church history who will point out whether he was right or merely stating his opinion?

Yes and no. If he believed it was necessary for exaltation, he would have established it for all members. As it was, only a fraction of members were called to practice it. And that's the key. Brigham Young didn't believe it was required for exaltation, but he believed that those who were called to practice it and rejected that calling were rejecting exaltation. See the difference?

[Suzie]

Yes and no. If he believed it was necessary for exaltation, he would have established it for all members. As it was, only a fraction of members were called to practice it. And that's the key. Brigham Young didn't believe it was required for exaltation, but he believed that those who were called to practice it and rejected that calling were rejecting exaltation. See the difference?

Not sure what you mean? It was practiced by a fraction at the time of Joseph Smith. During Brigham Young's period, polygamy was practiced at large and openly and officially announced in 1852 during a special conference however, yes, not every household practiced polygamy if that's what you mean? Having said that, I believe this isn't a matter of semantics. There is no doubt IMO that Brigham Young and other early leaders clearly believed that Polygamy was necessary for exaltation whether they meant it for the whole Church or for those who were actually practicing makes little difference to me. They clearly believed that only those who practice it would be able to become gods and the rest will be assigned other kingdoms.

[annewandering]

President Brigham Young was a strong believer that Plural Marriage was necessary for exaltation. He clearly said that the only men who can become Gods are those who enter into polygamy. Now, like anything else in Church history who will point out whether he was right or merely stating his opinion?

Suzie where do you read that Brigham Young said that only men who had multiple wives would become Gods? Not being critical, just wondering.

Nvm. it was from the Journal of Discourses? He was a man of strong opinions wasnt he. :)

Edited October 23, 2011 by annewandering

[Snow]

Suzie where do you read that Brigham Young said that only men who had multiple wives would become Gods? Not being critical, just wondering.

Nvm. it was from the Journal of Discourses? He was a man of strong opinions wasnt he. :)

By the way - that's how section 132 was understood by the Church until the early 20th century. It wasn't just BY.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Yes and no. If he believed it was necessary for exaltation, he would have established it for all members. As it was, only a fraction of members were called to practice it. And that's the key. Brigham Young didn't believe it was required for exaltation, but he believed that those who were called to practice it and rejected that calling were rejecting exaltation. See the difference?

Yes, I agree. And this is why there can be the question about God having multiple wives because if it was just a calling for a certain era for this life then it is not necessarily an eternal practice any more than circumcision or animal sacrifice would be. ... and yet it could be necessary for any specific person or group of people directly called to do such a thing.

[Seminarysnoozer]

That's not true. the word "if" does not appear in verse 53. Look at the text "he hath been faithful". The verb hath is past tense. You are replacing the word hath with the word if to suit yourself, and you remaking of the verse to better fit what you would prefer it to say.

Also verse 53 is clearly directed at Emma. Starting with verse 51 and ending with verse 56, the revelation is directed at Emma by name. In verse 57 the revelation is directed back at Joseph by name.

That wasn't my intention to replace the word "if" because that doesn't change my point. I agree that verse 53 is still talking to Emma, but the majority of the verse (except the first line) is about Joseph. Whereas verse 52 is about Emma's actions. That was my point. Because it changes the subject, from Emma to Joseph, from verse 52 to the remainder of verse 53 (after the first line - everything after the first semicolon).

Just so you know, this is what a semicolon is used for "the practice of using the semicolon is to separate words of opposed meaning and to indicate interdependent statements" according to the American Heritage dictionary.

[Guest Magen_Avot]

President Brigham Young was a strong believer that Plural Marriage was necessary for exaltation. He clearly said that the only men who can become Gods are those who enter into polygamy. Now, like anything else in Church history who will point out whether he was right or merely stating his opinion?

I had a good chuckle over mentioning BY. I'm no fan of his just with his twisting of the word of wisdom, and then looking at his "Adam God theory"... just makes me . I've aways wanted his discourses just to read all the crap he spewed out and forced on people with the "I'm the prophet" hammer. I do recall his statement (from way, way back) about polygamy being a mandate. Can't say I aggree with him and I sure won't worry about it. I'm pretty sure (and HOPE) he's got a date in the inferno to (as I believe) take responsibility for actions that make these other issues childs play.