Polygamy in the afterlife?


BusyB
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just a thought here - Being saved automatically in the Celestial Kingdom is not a guarantee at exaltation. There are three degrees within the Celestial Kingdom and only the highest is for the exalted.

Just as being saved in general is no guarantee of Celestial Glory, Christ has saved all but the sons of perdition suggesting that all Kingdoms of glory represent a salvation.

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. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think infants are exempt from proxy baptism because baptism will never be necessary for them. I think it's because baptism (and "sealing", actually) connotes a covenant, which the infant was incapable of making at the time of his death. Aren't there statements out there from Joseph Smith to the effect that children who die in infancy will be raised to adulthood in the Millennium? Surely you don't think anyone--even a child who died in infancy--can attain exaltation without covenanting to follow Christ, to obey, to sacrifice, and so on.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just_A_Guy:

Aren't there statements out there from Joseph Smith to the effect that children who die in infancy will be raised to adulthood in the Millennium?
"Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her: ‘You will have the joy, the pleasure and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit".
"In 1854, I met with my aunt [Agnes Smith], the wife of my uncle Don Carlos Smith, who was the mother of that little girl [sophronia] that Joseph Smith, the Prophet, was speaking about, when he told the mother that she should have the joy, the pleasure, and the satisfaction of rearing that child, after the resurrection, until it reached the full stature of its spirit; and that it would be a far greater joy than she could possibly have in mortality, because she would be free from the sorrow and fear and disabilities of mortal life. I met that widow, the mother of that child, and she told me this circumstance and bore testimony to me that this was what the Prophet Joseph Smith said when he was speaking at the funeral of her little daughter.” (Joseph F. Smith, Improvement Era, May 1918 page 571)
“He (the Prophet Joseph Smith) told us that we should receive those children in the morning of the resurrection just as we laid them down, in purity and innocence, and we should nourish and care for them as their mothers. He said that children would be raised in the resurrection just as they were laid down, and that they would obtain all the intelligence necessary to occupy thrones, principalities and powers.” (Mary Isabella Horne and Leonora Cannon Taylor, History of the Church, volume 4, page 556.)

Oh and by the way, that original quote Joseph Smith gave about children reigning forever as babes on their thrones in the King Follet sermon has been heavily modified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not disagreeing... I've never thought it about it that much, but if baptism is only required for cleansing in the case of children why was it still required of the Saviour to fulfill all righteousness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disagreeing... I've never thought it about it that much, but if baptism is only required for cleansing in the case of children why was it still required of the Saviour to fulfill all righteousness?

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

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and by the way, that original quote Joseph Smith gave about children reigning forever as babes on their thrones in the King Follet sermon has been heavily modified.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sure; and that's a whole other interesting discussion! But it seems that even under the JS theory--the spirit, the consciousness, continues to mature; and I think some form of covenant-making will be required.

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?

I'm just throwing out speculation here--certainly nothing definitive--but I think it interesting that JFS predicates his pronouncements on the statement that "Provision has been made for these ordinances to be performed vicariously for those who are worthy but who died without the opportunity in this life of receiving these ordinances in person."

The thing is, no such provision has been made for those who die in infancy. I think it's possible--perhaps not persuasive, but possible--to read JFS' statement as not applying to those who die in infancy.

We're told that every man must receive baptism (c.f. John 3:5). We are told in Mormon 8 (and I don't think it's the only reason ever; but I grant that it's the only scriptural one of which I am aware) that little children do not need baptism because they have no sin--they are "alive in Christ", or what-have-you. But as I understand it, the reason they have no sin is that they don't have the capacity to sin. It strikes me that--unless you expect them to spend eternity without that capacity--at some point they will need to make the same covenants that the rest of us have. If those covenants can be made without the rituals we typically associate with them, then why wouldn't God make a similar allowance for everyone who died without knowledge of the Gospel; rather than just children?

I wouldn't apostatize to find out that God has ordered things differently; but until we receive further light and knowledge--that's what makes sense to me personally. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and by the way, that original quote Joseph Smith gave about children reigning forever as babes on their thrones in the King Follet sermon has been heavily modified.

I can't claim to be an expert; but I think Jonathan Stapley has written some blog posts (at BCC, perhaps?) where he endorses the interpretation of Joseph Smith's teachings that Church has provided here. It's one of those things I've been meaning to delve into more, but just haven't found the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Read my lines carefully, I said marriage sealing, as it is called on lds.org. The sealing of child to parent is different, as you have already stated and you stated that the "sealing" is not an ordinance but a power. You are going back and forth. I was only referring to "marriage sealing".

Again, "when that is revealed, we will do this work" could also be said for those polygamy marriages, why not? Lets just say it could, for hypothetical argument sake - then the "seal" of the marriage is not broken as the promises pertaining to the covenant of "marriage sealing" still is provided just like when a wife is sealed in the temple and their husband becomes unfaithful, the wife can still enjoy the blessings that comes from her faithfulness, as it will be "revealed" and "we will do this work". Your argument that you can't break the "sealing" is then invalid, it wouldn't be broken. Recall, as it is stated on LDS.org, that the "marriage sealing" (not to be confused with sealing power) is a covenant between the person and the Lord. Certainly, the Lord has the power to keep the covenant blessings and promises in the way He can and in the right time. The polygamy marriage allowed those sisters and their children to obtain the temporal benefits of that covenant during their mortal life, irregardless of the eternal arrangement or satisfying of that "sealing".

One of the main reasons to do work for the dead is so they have an opportunity to accept the ordinance or not. In the case of children that die before the age of 8, they do not need the opportunity to choose or not, their salvation is automatic. That is the reason we do not perform saving ordinances for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're told that every man must receive baptism (c.f. John 3:5). We are told in Mormon 8 (and I don't think it's the only reason ever; but I grant that it's the only scriptural one of which I am aware) that little children do not need baptism because they have no sin--they are "alive in Christ", or what-have-you. But as I understand it, the reason they have no sin is that they don't have the capacity to sin. It strikes me that--unless you expect them to spend eternity without that capacity--at some point they will need to make the same covenants that the rest of us have. If those covenants can be made without the rituals we typically associate with them, then why wouldn't God make a similar allowance for everyone who died without knowledge of the Gospel; rather than just children?

I wouldn't apostatize to find out that God has ordered things differently; but until we receive further light and knowledge--that's what makes sense to me personally. :shrug:

Because death is not the end of the second estate test. It extends into the spirit prison where those spirits are their given the opportunity to choose.

The interesting question would be; are spirits in Paradise given opportunity to choose? or are they really in the Lord's rest? Children that die before the age of 8 go to Paradise. I guess it is a distinction between what happens in Paradise vs. Spirit Prison.

LDS.org; "Spirit Prison

The Apostle Peter referred to the postmortal spirit world as a prison, which it is for some (see 1 Peter 3:18–20). In the spirit prison are the spirits of those who have not yet received the gospel of Jesus Christ. These spirits have agency and may be enticed by both good and evil. If they accept the gospel and the ordinances performed for them in the temples, they may leave the spirit prison and dwell in paradise."

That doesn't sound like children who die before the age of 8 would be there and therefore ordinances performed in the temple for them are not something they would have to accept or not accept.

Alma 40; " 12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow."

Bruce R. McConkie; "Will children ever be tested?

Absolutely not! Any idea that they will be tested in paradise or during the millennium or after the millennium is pure fantasy. Why would a resurrected being, who has already come forth from the grave with a celestial body and whose salvation is guaranteed, be tested? Would the Lord test someone who cannot fail the test and whose exaltation is guaranteed? For that matter, all those billions of people who will be born during the millennium, when Satan is bound, “shall grow up without sin unto salvation” (D&C 45:58) and therefore will not be tested. “Satan cannot tempt little children in this life, nor in the spirit world, nor after their resurrection. Little children who die before reaching the years of accountability will not be tempted.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:56–57.) Such is the emphatic language of President Joseph Fielding Smith."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read my lines carefully, I said marriage sealing, as it is called on lds.org. The sealing of child to parent is different, as you have already stated and you stated that the "sealing" is not an ordinance but a power. You are going back and forth. I was only referring to "marriage sealing".

Again, "when that is revealed, we will do this work" could also be said for those polygamy marriages, why not? Lets just say it could, for hypothetical argument sake - then the "seal" of the marriage is not broken as the promises pertaining to the covenant of "marriage sealing" still is provided just like when a wife is sealed in the temple and their husband becomes unfaithful, the wife can still enjoy the blessings that comes from her faithfulness, as it will be "revealed" and "we will do this work". Your argument that you can't break the "sealing" is then invalid, it wouldn't be broken. Recall, as it is stated on LDS.org, that the "marriage sealing" (not to be confused with sealing power) is a covenant between the person and the Lord. Certainly, the Lord has the power to keep the covenant blessings and promises in the way He can and in the right time. The polygamy marriage allowed those sisters and their children to obtain the temporal benefits of that covenant during their mortal life, irregardless of the eternal arrangement or satisfying of that "sealing".

One of the main reasons to do work for the dead is so they have an opportunity to accept the ordinance or not. In the case of children that die before the age of 8, they do not need the opportunity to choose or not, their salvation is automatic. That is the reason we do not perform saving ordinances for them.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't claim to be an expert; but I think Jonathan Stapley has written some blog posts (at BCC, perhaps?) where he endorses the interpretation of Joseph Smith's teachings that Church has provided here. It's one of those things I've been meaning to delve into more, but just haven't found the time.

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. :D

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. :)

Edited by church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone could decide which 3 of Israel's wives he will divorce in the Celestial Kingdom (Celestial Divorce! lawyers will have jobs there after all :rolleyes:) we can move on to a new topic. Will it go by seniority? First wife wins? Or can the husband just pick a winner like the rose contest on TV? "Surprise Zilpa!! You are the winner! Leah, Rachel and Bilhah you win a free one year subscription to Celestial Leftovers magazine. Please say goodbye to your family and exit the stage"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone could decide which 3 of Israel's wives he will divorce in the Celestial Kingdom (Celestial Divorce! lawyers will have jobs there after all :rolleyes:) we can move on to a new topic. Will it go by seniority? First wife wins? Or can the husband just pick a winner like the rose contest on TV? "Surprise Zilpa!! You are the winner! Leah, Rachel and Bilhah you win a free one year subscription to Celestial Leftovers magazine. Please say goodbye to your family and exit the stage"

Except instead of a rose they're presented with a white stone. (Revelations 2:17 for any who don't get the joke.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I will apologize. Not because I intend to create some misconception concerning my personal beliefs - but because this thread by title to me is a most foolish and ridiculous discussion in how little we know about G-d and his society which is the Celestial Glory. I will summarize my thoughts and feelings.

First: Marriage as commanded by G-d is an act of agency that creates a covenant between one man, one woman and one G-d. It is part of the plan of G-d that as individuals - be the individuals male or female, to pursue one person (of the opposite sex) to marry in this life as well as all eternity. It is against the moral and plan of G-d for any married individual to pursue any other individual for marriage. It is also contrary to the moral and plan of G-d for any unmarried individual to pursue any married individual for marriage. Finally it is also contrary to the moral of G-d for any individual to pursue any one of the same sex for marriage.

It does not matter if an individual is mortal or Celestial - the morals, covenants and commandments of G-d stand eternal. Those that for what ever reason pursue that which is counter to the moral of G-d stand as enemy to G-d and his law, society, covenants and morals. It should not surprise anyone acquainted with the goodness and morals of G-d to find themselves threatened by those that oppose G-d - especially during our mortal existence.

Second: We should not judge eternal marriages in the Celestial Kingdom by sealing performed in mortality. D&C 132 states for the record that performing an ordinance does not trigger an eternal covenant but that the Holy Ghost must also act before a sealing covenant is valid in eternity. I am most sure that at least one sealing marriage performed for a prophet of this dispensation will not be valid in eternity - how many more is speculation that can be argued.

Third: Once someone has by their agency chosen an eternal marriage partner it is possible that G-d can command such a marriage include an additional woman. We do not know why only women are allowed inclusion - only that we have no revelation nor example otherwise. Again it is contrary to the moral of G-d for an existing marriage to pursue additions of any kind. Any additions are only when G-d commands.

Will there be any such commands in the Celestial Kingdom. I personally speculate that there will be - but I also believe that any such additions will only occur because of great sacrifice (not for any perceived benefit) for all concerned. But then thinking of some eternal benefit seems likely to me in a society upside down with morals as we are currently experiencing the belief that marriage is a benefit and a right for everybody - rather than a loving and giving sacrifice - first to G-d and then to our spouses.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone could decide which 3 of Israel's wives he will divorce in the Celestial Kingdom (Celestial Divorce! lawyers will have jobs there after all :rolleyes:) we can move on to a new topic. Will it go by seniority? First wife wins? Or can the husband just pick a winner like the rose contest on TV? "Surprise Zilpa!! You are the winner! Leah, Rachel and Bilhah you win a free one year subscription to Celestial Leftovers magazine. Please say goodbye to your family and exit the stage"

"A lawyer's dream of heaven: every man reclaimed his property at the resurrection, and each tried to recover it from all his forefathers." --Samuel Butler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not matter if an individual is mortal or Celestial - the morals, covenants and commandments of G-d stand eternal.

The Traveler

Could you explain further what you mean by this statement.

How does the commandment of circumcision or animal sacrifice stand eternal? Are you just saying that the blessings that come from the obedience to the commandments stand eternal or that the commandment will have to be lived and performed eternally? If your statement does not include, necessarily, living by the law or commandment eternally as part of the "stand eternal" statement then this is an important distinction made when discussing other laws and commandments such as polygamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First I will apologize. Not because I intend to create some misconception concerning my personal beliefs - but because this thread by title to me is a most foolish and ridiculous discussion in how little we know about G-d and his society which is the Celestial Glory. I will summarize my thoughts and feelings.

Interesting that if you feel this way that you then go on to discuss it.

It is against the moral and plan of G-d for any married individual to pursue any other individual for marriage.

You'd best source a statement like that.

We should not judge eternal marriages in the Celestial Kingdom by sealing performed in mortality. D&C 132 states for the record that performing an ordinance does not trigger an eternal covenant but that the Holy Ghost must also act before a sealing covenant is valid in eternity.

Yes, but we are also given clear directions in what we must do (our part of the covenant) so that the Holy Ghost will act. It is a covenant and the Lord is bound when we do what He says.

Third: Once someone has by their agency chosen an eternal marriage partner it is possible that G-d can command such a marriage include an additional woman.

Actually, the first marriage does not include another woman. The second marriage between the man and the woman is a separate marriage.

We do not know why only women are allowed inclusion - only that we have no revelation nor example otherwise.

Well, yeah...sort of we don't know why...except we sort of do. The one reason God has given us for the existence of polygamy is to raise up seed unto Him. Two men and one woman would go nowhere in accomplishing this purpose.

Again it is contrary to the moral of G-d for an existing marriage to pursue additions of any kind. Any additions are only when G-d commands.

There are three states actually. 1. God forbids plural marriage (default). 2. God allows plural marriage. 3. God commands plural marriage. Your theory does not allow for number 2.

Moreover, even when commanded, it still falls within our agency. Men still need to select their second mate. They still must "pursue" them.

Will there be any such commands in the Celestial Kingdom. I personally speculate that there will be - but I also believe that any such additions will only occur because of great sacrifice (not for any perceived benefit) for all concerned. But then thinking of some eternal benefit seems likely to me in a society upside down with morals as we are currently experiencing the belief that marriage is a benefit and a right for everybody - rather than a loving and giving sacrifice - first to G-d and then to our spouses.

I'm sort of okay with this thinking except it seems to black-and-white sacrifice and benefit to opposite ends of the spectrum. Why can't something be both? In fact, theologically, sacrifice is one of the prime ways to achieve benefits. This is one of my issues with those who reject plural marriage on the grounds of the pain it causes. We give ourselves to find ourselves. We give all to get all. We take up our crosses to gain eternal life.

Sacrifice is a blessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you explain further what you mean by this statement.

How does the commandment of circumcision or animal sacrifice stand eternal? Are you just saying that the blessings that come from the obedience to the commandments stand eternal or that the commandment will have to be lived and performed eternally? If your statement does not include, necessarily, living by the law or commandment eternally as part of the "stand eternal" statement then this is an important distinction made when discussing other laws and commandments such as polygamy.

The covenants associate with circumcision and/or animal sacrifice do stand eternal. For those who lived in a time where these were commanded, they will receive the blessings they have a right to because of that obedience. That doesn't mean they'll eternally kill animals. Now I know that you're going to turn right around and say "What about polygamy then. If they don't have to kill animals eternally then why will they have to live polygamy eternally?" You will ask that because you equate polygamy to sacrifice and sacrifice alone. If you are right, then you are right. If polygamy was nothing but a sacrifice, then I agree that it will end. But I, for myself, believe that there was and is something significantly more to it than sacrifice.

Forgive me for putting words into your mouth, particularly if I'm wrong. I won't be offended if you correct me on this account. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I have to ask then, why bother making polygamous marriages "sealings" at all then?

.

Great question!

Because, as with all covenants, there are temporal blessings available where one has a special relationship with the Lord that is otherwise not there. And, yes, the temporal blessings can translate into eternal blessings. If God has it, then anything we can do to experience even a small part of what He has will advance our appreciation and understanding of what He has to offer us when we receive our inheritance. Where much is given much is required. And if we are good stewards over small things then we will be given greater stewardship in the life to come. There is a responsibility and blessings that come from living that responsibility of an "eternal" relationship.

If a person gets married in the temple and their spouse fails to stay faithful and even leaves the person, is there any benefit for the faithful individual to continue to live by eternal marriage standards? Why should they if they are obviously not going to be "sealed" to that person? Will the benefits of a "marriage sealing" covenant be taken away from that person? ... only if they fail to remain faithful as the covenant is between that person and the Lord and that cannot be broken only except with the individual failing to live by their obligation.

Mosiah 2; " 17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."

All the women and men who faithfully lived the commandment of polygamy, by definition, did it to serve God, not for some personal advancement or promise for higher reward. Their expectations for some higher reward will not be shattered if they really were in the service of their God. I can say for a certainty that any man in the next life who has lived faithful polygamy in this life and, if it be true, ends up with only one wife in the next life, will not feel the loss as it was done in this life as any faithful steward would do - realizing that this life is a stewardship, not ownership. The blessings for being a faithful steward will not be forgotten or lost.

Definition of steward (one of them); a person assigned to manage or look over another person's property or responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure anyone drew that conclusion or any specific points would lead to that (from my reading of the thread).

What about the 6.6 million children that died under the age of 5 in 2012. Just start with those. Will all of them live polygamy in the next life?

Or how about the 12.4 million children who died under the age of 5 in 1990? Do the boys in that group get two or ten wives each?

If there truly is an added value of some kind to having more than one wife in the next life, then why wouldn't the boy who died before the age of 8, who didn't have the opportunity to marry be given 1 million wives, or 10 billion wives? Why would there be some kind of limit?

What about the faithful man who lives at a time when polygamy is not allowed because of the laws of the land. You believe that the opportunity would be given to fix that issue? If, so, then why wouldn't every faithful man be given millions of wives, not just one or two more? Or does the added value start to taper off once the number approaches infinity?

So, back to the first question, what about those 6.6 million that died under the age of 5 in 2012? How many wives will those boys be offered? I know you can't tell me but do you think it is more than one?

The problem is at a certain number of wives for each boy that died before the age of 8 there would not be enough women that lived in this world to support any higher ratio without somehow finding women from somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the women and men who faithfully lived the commandment of polygamy, by definition, did it to serve God, not for some personal advancement or promise for higher reward.

This is false. You can not win points by saying things that aren't true. The exact reason why people followed the principle of plural marriage was for a promise of higher reward and personal advancement. You want some quotes? There are plenty.

Here's one to start. If you want more, let me know.

"This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." - Helen Mar Kimball

I can say for a certainty that any man in the next life who has lived faithful polygamy in this life and, if it be true, ends up with only one wife in the next life, will not feel the loss as it was done in this life as any faithful steward would do - realizing that this life is a stewardship, not ownership. The blessings for being a faithful steward will not be forgotten or lost.

Your equation of marriage is nothing more than a stewardship doesn't work. It is, frankly, disrespectful to committed marriage, the meaning and intent of sealing and eternal marriage, and not supportable by gospel teachings. Sure, there are stewardship principles that apply to marriage. But there is also, unquestionably, more to marriage than just looking after something that doesn't actually belong to you. If you wish to think of your marriage that way, go for it. I know my marriage and my sealing are more than that. And if my wife gets taken away I will feel a loss. So would any sane man. I cannot fathom treating the marriage covenant so casually in that way. My sealing to my wife means something. She matters to me and my continued relationship with her is part of the covenant and part of the promises that the Lord has made to me (and to her) if we are faithful. Yes, if she doesn't keep here covenants I will lose her. And I will feel loss. How callous would I be to not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share