BusyB

Polygamy in the afterlife?

Recommended Posts

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.

Why are you re-asking this? It has been asked and answered in this very thread. Go back 10-15 or so pages and there it is. If we are going to keep beating the dead horse (thanks Eowyn :) haha) then at least let's address semi-new aspects of the issue. I'm not against going back and forth. But the same exact question we've already discussed thoroughly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
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.

Yes, I agree he taught this idea as well as Young but then Smith is recorded as explaining further what he exactly meant by that statement.

B.H Roberts recorded the statements of Woodruff and a few others who were present during the King Follett discourse who claimed Smith made a clarification about this particular point a few months before his martyrdom.

The writer of this note distinctly remembers to have heard the late President Wilford Woodruff , who reported the above sermon [i.e of March 20, 1842], say, that the Prophet corrected the impression that had been made by his King Follet sermon, that children and infants would remain fixed in the stature of their infancy and childhood in and after the resurrection. President Woodruff very emphatically said on the occasion of the subject being agitated about 1888-89, that the Prophet taught subsequently to his King Follett sermon that children while resurrected to the stature at which they died would develop to the full stature of men and women after the resurrection: and that the contrary impression created by the report of the Prophet's King Follett sermon was due to a misunderstanding of his remarks and erroneous reporting. (History of the Church, 4: 556)

Woodruff believed this and he taught it, by the other hand it was Joseph F. Smith who was already uncomfortable about the first impression that was given, who gave this new clarification a "doctrinal stamp".

In the Improvement Era 1904, Joseph F. Smith is quoted as saying:

The body will come forth as it is laid to rest, for there is no growth or development in the grave. As it is laid down, so will it rise and changes to perfection will come by the law of restitution. But the spirit will continue to expand and develop, and the body after the resurrection, will develop to the full stature of men. This may be accepted as the doctrine of the Church in respect to the resurrection of children and their future development to the full stature of men and women and its alike conformable to that which will be regarded as both reasonable and desirable".

This could be the reason, why that quote of Smith in the King Follett discourse was heavily edited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've reread all the posts. I can't see where it has been answered that there will be a lot more women in the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. Because, really, for polygamy to exist for every man in the highest degree, there will need to be a lot more women there. I don't believe Heavenly Father would have sent his sons to this earth, and say, "sorry, just because you are male, you most likely will not make it to the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, but my daughters will." I'm not saying polygamy will not exist in the Celestial Kingdom. I believe it will. But, I don't see how every man will be able to be sealed to more than one woman, when over the many thousands of years of time, more male babies are born every year, and more male babies die at infancy. The numbers do not add up.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

You are confusing ordinances of the priesthood with commandments.

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've reread all the posts. I can't see where it has been answered that there will be a lot more women in the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. Because, really, for polygamy to exist for every man in the highest degree, there will need to be a lot more women there. I don't believe Heavenly Father would have sent his sons to this earth, and say, "sorry, just because you are male, you most likely will not make it to the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, but my daughters will." I'm not saying polygamy will not exist in the Celestial Kingdom. I believe it will. But, I don't see how every man will be able to be sealed to more than one woman, when over the many thousands of years of time, more male babies are born every year, and more male babies die at infancy. The numbers do not add up.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting that if you feel this way that you then go on to discuss it.

Sorry again - you have misunderstood my intent - which is why I apologized in the first place.

You'd best source a statement like that.

My great-grandfather’s journal that was living plural marriage as a command he received from Brigham Young. He stated that he was instructed that he personally not choose the additional wife but that be left to his first wife.

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.

I did not see that expressed in D&C 132. As I understand - if the Holy Ghost does not seal the ordinance it will not be valid in the next life. Just because the ordinance was performed does not mean that the Holy Ghost is obligated to seal it. I am not sure what your point is or your question?

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

From my great-grandfather's journal I am sure that there is not a second marriage but that the first marriage is ammended to include an additional wife.

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.

Genetic diversity is more empirically important in a closed society than what you are allowing credit.

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.

Again I think there is some confusion between commandments and ordinances. Commandments from G-d are given in a manner that there is a way to accomplish the commandment – It is not commanded that everyone must enter into marriage in this life.

I would also point out that the righteous individuals from which we have example in scripture (Abraham and Israel) that they did not pursue or determine their additional wives.

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.

Likewise a blessing is a sacrifice - the root of the word sacifice means in essence to make sacred or worthy to be in the presents of G-d.

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry again - you have misunderstood my intent - which is why I apologized in the first place.

Only interesting. No worries here.

My great-grandfather’s journal that was living plural marriage as a command he received from Brigham Young. He stated that he was instructed that he personally not choose the additional wife but that be left to his first wife.

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.

I did not see that expressed in D&C 132. As I understand - if the Holy Ghost does not seal the ordinance it will not be valid in the next life. Just because the ordinance was performed does not mean that the Holy Ghost is obligated to seal it. I am not sure what your point is or your question?

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.

From my great-grandfather's journal I am sure that there is not a second marriage but that the first marriage is ammended to include an additional wife.

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 more empirically important in a closed society than what you are allowing credit.

Genetic diversity is not one of the known reasons given for plural marriage, however.

Again I think there is some confusion between commandments and ordinances. Commandments from G-d are given in a manner that there is a way to accomplish the commandment – It is not commanded that everyone must enter into marriage in this life.

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.

I would also point out that the righteous individuals from which we have example in scripture (Abraham and Israel) that they did not pursue or determine their additional wives.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've reread all the posts. I can't see where it has been answered that there will be a lot more women in the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom. Because, really, for polygamy to exist for every man in the highest degree, there will need to be a lot more women there. I don't believe Heavenly Father would have sent his sons to this earth, and say, "sorry, just because you are male, you most likely will not make it to the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom, but my daughters will." I'm not saying polygamy will not exist in the Celestial Kingdom. I believe it will. But, I don't see how every man will be able to be sealed to more than one woman, when over the many thousands of years of time, more male babies are born every year, and more male babies die at infancy. The numbers do not add up.

Forgive me for chiming in late (that said, I've read every post in the thread). I much prefer to read others' insights into the topics on this forum than write posts of my own (I believe the term is "lurking").

One thing that came to mind as I read this post is the concept that God presides over who know how many worlds/planets. From this, who knows whether the Celestial Kingdom of our Heavenly Father, to which we refer, is inherited by only those upon this one planet, or by those from all worlds/planets over which He presides, that obtain this glory? Do they have a different Celestial Kingdom, because they lived their mortal estate on a separate planet? If the Kingdom is one and the same, then we wouldn't have the foggiest idea as to gender discrepancies, He having an infinite number of creations - both worlds and children.

A step further, could the one Celestial Kingdom be for all that inherit the Celestial glory, from ALL planets/worlds of ALL Gods, knowing that there is more than one? Who really knows what is possible and what the gender discrepancies will be at any one time in an arena presided over by One not subject the same time and space dimensions to which we mortals are subject in our current sphere.

My own line of questioning could very well expose limits in my own human understanding - I like to think of Celestial Kingdom/glory as not just a geographical space/place, but a state of being and a sociality, so there's numerous layers/dimensions on that front also.

Just my Australian_2c_Coin.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :)

I think you hit the nail on the head in terms of relating it to covenants given via prophets for a certain era. Thanks. Abraham's covenant with the Lord related to his seed and posterity included the covenant of circumcision. As stated previously, it is not just sacrifice but the temporal assistance and opportunity in expanding the test that comes from the Lord while living by the covenant in this probationary life.

I look at this life as a second estate test in which if we are good stewards with what we are given then we will be given more and placed in a position to receive more in the next life. It is kind of like a college entrance exam. Just because the test may include some situation on the exam like "John and Jane are traveling in a train going 70 mph heading east ..." doesn't necessarily mean that one is going to encounter John and Jane traveling on a train going 70 mph heading east in real life. It is just an exam.

Just because my father is my father in this life doesn't mean he is older than me spiritually. Just because my cousin has Down's syndrome doesn't mean she will have Down's in the next life or had it before. All of our stewardship here is part of our probationary second estate test. As it states in the scriptures we should not claim ownership. We do not want to be unjust stewards. God will reward us plentifully for each success and according to each principle learned and achieved.

The teaching of "marriage sealing" made available in this life to a sister who may not have otherwise had the opportunity to take that part of the "exam" and she passes it well will be given the reward associated with passing that part of the exam. In other words, in the same light that a person given the challenge of any situation in this test, like Paul's "thorn in the flesh" will not necessarily have it for the eternities but be rewarded with something greater for his or her endurance; likewise a sister that was second or fifth wife to an eternal marriage lived faithfully will be equally rewarded in the next for being faithful. We are given small stewardship in this life (not ownership) to show our worthiness for greater things in the next life. Those that are low shall be made high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The debate from a numbers standpoint isn't just will there be enough but more along the lines of the number would have to be infinite or exponentially related. If two wives is better than one, then doesn't it reason to say that three is better than two? This can go on and on to say that an infinite number of wives is better. There would be an exponential relationship. How can more than one male both have an infinite number of wives? At some point the exponential relationship becomes unreal and unimaginable. I realize we have limited vision of the eternities but still it is hard to imagine that there would be infinite supplies of women available for each worthy man. One would have to imagine worlds created in which there are million to one ratios or higher of women to men. Or worlds in which there are only women, which cannot be the case. If an infinite number of wives is better than one then why wouldn't God marry all the wives? There is nobody left in that scenario for you guys, sorry.

If one says, well a certain number of wives is better but not infinite, then that would detract from any idea that two is better than one, that there is some value added from each wife. X+1 > X, would have to always be true even when X is equal to the total number of souls lived in this world. It is not a sustainable ideal to my mind - realizing that may be the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

A few things - my great-grandfather refused to take a second wife until he and his first wife met with Brigham Young in his office - at which time my great-grandfather testifies that he, his wife and Brigham Young were given revelation - which he recorded in part in his journal.

If Emma was not aware - then the principle of approval was not followed. The problem I have with all this is that I do not believe this discussion is helping at all in presenting truths concerning polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom.

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.

Hmmmmmm - would you differentiate your understanding between ordinances, covenants and commandments?

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.

I think you should talk with Sister Sheri Dew

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.

Interesting you picked David and Solomon - especially in light of the verse in D&C 132 before the one you quoted but more so Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

If one is looking for excuse - they can find it in scripture. My point is that not every marriage on earth will be sealed in heaven. If you read carefully D&C 132:39 you will see at the end of the verse that a plural pronoun (emphasizing plural) concerning David and Solomon will not be sealed to them for eternity - in fact I am not sure if any will for them. Therefore - I do not teach that any of their marriages stand as an eternal example of what we or anyone else ought to do. Likewise if I suggest a principle - it will be from an example that I honestly believe is an example that will be for eternity.

As to what will be in eternity - we know that many marriages that are acceptable for this life before G-d but are not acceptable in the Celestial Kingdom. Just because G-d grants approval during mortality does not mean that the requirements of Celestial are met and that such will eternally endure.

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are the one who clumped them together with this statement; "the morals, covenants and commandments of G-d stand eternal", not me.

How is it that this clumps together ordinances of the priesthood with commandments - especially since the term or word ordinances was not included? Perhaps if you were to specify what you think are ordinances of the priesthood and what are covenants, morals, and commandments. For example - I believe one can participate in an ordinance of the priesthood without regard for morals, covenants and commandments of G-d and that we have historical examples of such things.

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Emma was not aware - then the principle of approval was not followed. The problem I have with all this is that I do not believe this discussion is helping at all in presenting truths concerning polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom.

D&C 132:65

Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

Hmmmmmm - would you differentiate your understanding between ordinances, covenants and commandments?

My understanding is what the church teaches.

ordinance

In the Church, an ordinance is a sacred, formal act performed by the authority of the priesthood. Some ordinances are essential to our exaltation. These ordinances are called saving ordinances. They include baptism, confirmation, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for men), the temple endowment, and the marriage sealing. With each of these ordinances, we enter into solemn covenants with the Lord.

covenant

A covenant is a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people. God sets specific conditions, and He promises to bless us as we obey those conditions. When we choose not to keep covenants, we cannot receive the blessings, and in some instances we suffer a penalty as a consequence of our disobedience.

All the saving ordinances of the priesthood are accompanied by covenants.

Commandment doesn't need a church definition. It's pretty obvious. Anything that is commanded.

I think you should talk with Sister Sheri Dew

For which part of my statement?

Interesting you picked David and Solomon - especially in light of the verse in D&C 132 before the one you quoted but more so Jacob 2:24 "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord."

If one is looking for excuse - they can find it in scripture. My point is that not every marriage on earth will be sealed in heaven. If you read carefully D&C 132:39 you will see at the end of the verse that a plural pronoun (emphasizing plural) concerning David and Solomon will not be sealed to them for eternity - in fact I am not sure if any will for them. Therefore - I do not teach that any of their marriages stand as an eternal example of what we or anyone else ought to do. Likewise if I suggest a principle - it will be from an example that I honestly believe is an example that will be for eternity.

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.

As to what will be in eternity - we know that many marriages that are acceptable for this life before G-d but are not acceptable in the Celestial Kingdom. Just because G-d grants approval during mortality does not mean that the requirements of Celestial are met and that such will eternally endure.

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

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; ...and if ye abide in my covenant,...it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

It is not fair for you to call it a "straw man" just because your understanding of the sealing power is different than mine.

In fact, you are using "straw man" technique here by saying that I was relating every act and commandment to priesthood ordinances, which I did no such thing. I gave examples of other priesthood ordinances and "everlasting covenants" as the circumcision was called by those that had been given the sealing power. Did Abraham have the sealing power or not?

The sealing power relates to the binding effect of covenants with God to endure not only here but in the next life. In other words, the contract is still valid in the next life. How and where the contract is satisfied is up to God. The sealing power simply are the keys to make it valid into the next life that the types of relationships can continue in the next life, the family relationships. The sealing power has to do with all the priesthood ordinances needed to reach exaltation from baptism on.

D&C 132; "7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

If you want to say that Abraham performed the circumcision without sealing power and it will have "no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead" then I guess I did present a straw man argument.

Even without that example, I have given the example of a spouse who has undergone the marriage sealing under the sealing powers given to the few that hold it in the temple but one spouse later becomes unfaithful. If the way that you are interpreting "marriage sealing" is correct, then that would mean that that "marriage sealing" is no invalid to even the one who remains faithful because you are trying to say that the "marriage sealing" is only to a specific person. And so that faithful person falls short of exaltation or they don't and it is somehow rectified and remains a valid contract extending after death. We can't have it both ways. Either the "marriage sealing" is only person specific or there can be exceptions to the specificity of the person depending on circumstances because the contract is with the Lord and He can fulfill it.

The sealing power as it pertains to marriage is the contract made in this life to enjoy family relationships in the next. It is not broken if the fulfillment of the contract with the person results in the person enjoying family relationships in the next life, irregardless of the specificity of the person. That is my understanding of the sealing power, so don't call it a "straw man" just because we may have different views of the effect of the sealing power.

I have not made any arguments that the sealing between parent-child is the same as between husband-wife. That is your interpretation of what I explained above, that the sealing power to make those things happen in the next life is done under the same power, the sealing power. In that sense they are similar, just like the sealing power is used to make the effect of baptism last.

I also think that people over interpret the word "bind" as if it means to lock in place. That is not the meaning. It simply means to endorse, like the seal placed on an envelope binds closed an official document ... until it is opened. Boyd K. Packer explained; "The word seal, used in that context, becomes synonymous for endorse or confirm, to license, to favor, to ratify, to accredit, to authorize, to advocate, and to bind." Something that is "bound" by the sealing power simply means it was done with spiritual authority and holds validity in the next life. It does not mean, locked in place, or unchangeable or unable to fulfill in any other way than the way stated. That is an emotional interpretation based in wanting to posses something or someone individually and exclusively. (and that is why I spoke of stewardship, but I guess I took it too far)

LDS.org; "In the Church we hold sufficient authority to perform all of the ordinances necessary to redeem and to exalt the whole human family. And, because we have the keys to the sealing power, what we bind in proper order here will be bound in heaven. Those keys—the keys to seal and bind on earth, and have it bound in heaven—represent the consummate gift from our God. With that authority we can baptize and bless, we can endow and seal, and the Lord will honor our commitments.

The Prophet Joseph Smith said he was frequently asked the question, “‘Can we not be saved without going through with all those ordinances, etc?’ I would answer, No, not the fullness of salvation. Jesus said, ‘There are many mansions in my Father’s house, and I will go and prepare a place for you.’ House here named should have been translated kingdom; and any person who is exalted to the highest mansion has to abide a celestial law, and the whole law too” (History of the Church, 6:184)."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are confusing ordinances of the priesthood with commandments.

The Traveler

Please tell me what I am confusing. I am not following what I think you are trying to say here.

I know there is a difference, but how do you think I am confused about their differences?

Baptism, an ordinance of the priesthood, is a covenant in which we agree to keep the commandments. They are different parts but related. What am I confusing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2012 at 6:35 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

 polygamy that requires a man to get consent from his wife or wives before taking another plural wife.

Even if the wife dies, and a man sealed to another woman in this life? Do you know where I can find information on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TurboGirl said:

Even if the wife dies, and a man sealed to another woman in this life? Do you know where I can find information on this?

Being sealed and being married during this life is a bit different.  There is a difference between marrying and living with more than one wife and being sealed to more than one woman because one passed away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, pam said:

Being sealed and being married during this life is a bit different.  There is a difference between marrying and living with more than one wife and being sealed to more than one woman because one passed away.

Yes, I know, let me explain why I want to know. My mother and father where married in the temple, my mother died, my father married another woman in the temple (or all time and eternity). So in his beliefs he is now a polygamist in the next life. I am reading this thread to find something about if a woman will have a choice if she wants to be a polygamist in the afterlife or not. There is no way my mother would have choose this woman to be her sister-wife, and my mom made it clear in this life this was not something she wanted. I was very surprised my dad did it. I think he was very heavily pressured by his bishop and this woman to have her sealed to him in the temple. She went as far to get a temple divorce from her 1st husband (which she got, because he was an abuser) so she could marry my dad. I just want to find something on this subject to find out why a man even needs two wives in the next life. Why would the church have members do something if they have no idea why they need to do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TurboGirl said:

Yes, I know, let me explain why I want to know. My mother and father where married in the temple, my mother died, my father married another woman in the temple (or all time and eternity). So in his beliefs he is now a polygamist in the next life. I am reading this thread to find something about if a woman will have a choice if she wants to be a polygamist in the afterlife or not. There is no way my mother would have choose this woman to be her sister-wife, and my mom made it clear in this life this was not something she wanted. I was very surprised my dad did it. I think he was very heavily pressured by his bishop and this woman to have her sealed to him in the temple. She went as far to get a temple divorce from her 1st husband (which she got, because he was an abuser) so she could marry my dad. I just want to find something on this subject to find out why a man even needs two wives in the next life. Why would the church have members do something if they have no idea why they need to do it?

Do you see anywhere in the gospel where God refuses a person their agency?  Don't mistake this for not liking the consequences.  The choice will always be to follow God or not...  If we choose not then we will limit is ability to bless us... but a blessing will never be forced on someone that does not want it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, TurboGirl said:

There is no way my mother would have choose this woman to be her sister-wife, and my mom made it clear in this life this was not something she wanted.

A couple of thoughts. What you Mother would or wouldn't do, or who she would or wouldn't choose is at best a "guess" on your part right now. In addition the thoughts/understandings/realizations that your mother had while on earth may not be the same as those she currently has in the afterlife.

ching, ching...my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeedleinA said:

A couple of thoughts. What you Mother would or wouldn't do, or who she would or wouldn't choose is at best a "guess" on your part right now. In addition the thoughts/understandings/realizations that your mother had while on earth may not be the same as those she currently has in the afterlife.

ching, ching...my 2 cents.

Very true.  So much more truth and understanding is given in the afterlife that we just don't have here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TurboGirl said:

 I just want to find something on this subject to find out why a man even needs two wives in the next life. Why would the church have members do something if they have no idea why they need to do it?

Why do it?  Because the Lord told us to.  

Also, there are some things (like the eternities) which we simply aren't really capable of understanding at this time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
58 minutes ago, TurboGirl said:

.... I am reading this thread to find something about if a woman will have a choice if she wants to be a polygamist in the afterlife or not. There is no way my mother would have choose this woman to be her sister-wife, and my mom made it clear in this life this was not something she wanted...

If you're born under the covenant and decide that you don't want to be sealed to your parents or your siblings or both, then will you be sealed to them in the eternities?

What's the difference?

While I get and to a certain degree agree with Estradling, I'd say that there would be more of a reason to "force" your mom into the relationship when she knew what the consequences would be.  But when we're born in the covenant, I don't know how much choice we have.

In either case, there are choices, there are sealings, there are consequences both good and bad.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now