Polygamy in the afterlife?


BusyB
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

 

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

 

The reason your Dad got married and sealed, he already told you. and nothing seems wrong with what you told us he told you.

 To go on a mission you don't need to be sealed for All Time and Eternity you can just be married right? So it goes back to my original question....Why does he need two wives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TurboGirl said:

To go on a mission you don't need to be sealed for All Time and Eternity you can just be married right? So it goes back to my original question....Why does he need two wives?

It's not a question of whether he needs two wives, it's a question of whether he chooses to have two wives.  There's nothing that says he has to be sealed / married again, but he is allowed to be sealed again.  This is why I recommended you discuss it with him.  We can answer questions about our beliefs in regards to eternal marriage and plural wives, but we can't answer why your father chose to do as he did, nor why anyone gave him whatever advice they gave him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, TurboGirl said:

 

 To go on a mission you don't need to be sealed for All Time and Eternity you can just be married right? So it goes back to my original question....Why does he need two wives?

No your Father does not need to be Sealed go on a mission, just married and take his wife along...

You use the word "need."  Need is the wrong word, but Zil addressed that.

Let me ask you a question...  Your issue is focused on spouse number 2, but you don't seem to have a problem with a Heavenly spouse number 1...  What is your scriptural, doctrinal, and/or personal reasoning for accepting that a ceremony that generally ends with a phrase like "Until Death do you part" might not really end at death?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The missionary work beyond the veil is not about creating a "change of heart".  It is to allow those whose hearts were already prepared to receive the gospel (but did not have the opportunity to accept it prior to death) a chance to accept it.  In terms of the gospel, it is a chance for them to accept the ordinances when they would have performed them in this life, had they had the opportunity to do so.

In order to accept the ordinances, they must be educated in what the ordinances are and what covenants are made.  This education is a large part of the missionary efforts beyond the veil.

But what/who/how a person is in his heart at the time of death doesn't really change between death and judgment.

The "day of this life" might well include post-mortal spirit world experiences. This has not been clarified with revelation. I think it's dangerous to suppose that one can "eat, drink, and be merry" in this life, and then magically repent after death. That is not how it works. But by the same token, it's not correct to state that postmortal repentance and growth cannot happen. It very clearly can. What the specific parameters are have not been revealed, so anything we say on that front is speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This is Saul becoming Paul.

Saul did not "become" Paul. He was always Paul. "Saul" was his Jewish name; when he worked and taught among the Jews, he obviously went by Saul. His Roman cognomen was Paulus, so when he left behind working with the Jews and went among the "Greeks" (Gentiles) for the rest of his life, he naturally used his Roman surname.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TurboGirl said:

Ok I'm a little confused but let me see if I am understanding correctly:

1. Because my mom already made it to the temple she had already "received the gospel"

2. But at the time of her death, she would not have been able to get into the temple, so she wasn't keeping the all the "ordinances" so she wouldn't be eligible for the top tier. And maybe that's why my dad thought needed to marry this other woman for all time and eternity, in case my mom doesn't "make it"?

No and no.

  1. Your mother "received the gospel" by accepting it and working to integrate it into her life. If we must name a moment at which it happened, that moment would be baptism, when she received the Holy Ghost as the first and most important gift given her.
  2. Despite anything anyone here has written, we are not in any wise qualified to judge your mother. We have no idea what her state is before God. This is one reason that I personally really, really hate the common usage "if they make it". Exaltation is not a checklist to be completed or an exam that God will say, "Oooooooh, bummer. Only those who score 90% and above get in, and you got an 89.6%. No curve. Very sorry about that."

Your father's marriage has nothing at all to do with whether or not your mother "made it", which is itself a flawed concept (as I have mentioned). If your father wants to serve a mission while in mortality, he must be married to a living woman during his missionary service. Being sealed to a deceased wife is not sufficient. I know of no modern examples where this was not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TurboGirl said:

Amy has talked about the missionary work in Heaven, that her father or grandfather is teaching the Nephites and that my mom is teaching primary. Some of the stuff that weirds me out a little. Because why would there be a primary because the children that die get their prefect body also correct?

Sounds like your stepmother is sharing intimate things with  you that would perhaps be better left unshared.

Children who die do not receive their physical bodies until they are resurrected, just like everyone else. They live in their spiritual form. We might speculate that children who die before the age of accountability are somehow marked or separated as special, and that special instruction is given them in the hereafter. This might account for your stepmother's teachings.

Note that this is only speculation, not revealed doctrine. I don't know what to make of your stepmother's words, except that she either spoke beyond her knowledge or she shared with you private things that might better have been left private. What we are told is that children who die before the age of accountability -- all children, not just LDS children -- do not need to be baptized by proxy, but are accepted home to that God who gave them life. So the above speculation is reasonable, but by no means is it a doctrine of the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TurboGirl said:

 To go on a mission you don't need to be sealed for All Time and Eternity you can just be married right? So it goes back to my original question....Why does he need two wives?

He doesn't "need" two wives. He chose to marry and be sealed to two women.

You appear to be confusing two very separate things: (1) Your father must be married to a living wife (not merely sealed to a deceased wife) in order to be considered for missionary service, and (2) Your father has been sealed to a second wife, so that now both your mother and another woman are sealed to him.

These two items are not directly related. They are separate issues.

As has already been pointed out, for your father to serve a Church mission, he must be married to a living, flesh-and-blood woman. Being sealed to your mother is not sufficient. So it is possible that he chose to remarry specifically so he could go on a mission. (Doubtful, in my opinion, but possible.) I believe that he need not even have been sealed to his second wife to qualify for missionary service.

As to why your father chose to be sealed to his second wife, I cannot do more than hazard a guess. That is his own private business, between him, his wife, and God (and perhaps your mother). I do not mean to be rude or unkind, but only factual, when I tell you as gently as writing on a public forum will allow that your father's reasons are not your business. That does not mean you can't ask, of course. But it does mean that your father may choose to share with you as much or as little of his private reasoning as seems good to him.

So you may never know just what he was thinking when he made that decision. But it was his decision to make, and he did so. This is why I suggested, and still suggest, that you fill your role as a loving and dutiful daughter by respecting his decisions in the matter and trying to build a good relationship with his new wife. Both your father and you will be better off if you do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TurboGirl said:

Amy has talked about the missionary work in Heaven, that her father or grandfather is teaching the Nephites and that my mom is teaching primary. Some of the stuff that weirds me out a little. Because why would there be a primary because the children that die get their prefect body also correct?

Turbogirl,

I'm having difficulty believing we've got everything straight here.  Some of the things you're saying (such as ^^^^) simply don't sound right.  So, either we're just getting stuff filtered through your thoughts (which apparently includes a lot of misunderstanding) or your step-mother is not right in the head.

"her father... is teaching the Nephites"???

"your mom is teaching primary"???

I suppose there are some contexts in which that would make sense.  But I can certainly see why all that would weird you out.  That doesn't sound right without proper context.  Perhaps it's a good thing we're getting this through your filter so we can understand what you're getting from them.  The way you've put it (which is apparently the way you're receiving it) it sounds weird to me too.

What context would those two items in particular sound right?  I'm not sure about the Nephite thing.  I can'f figure that one out.  I suppose it's possible.  But why would??? I don't know about that one.

I could see that in her flight of fancy, your step-mom thinks your mom is teaching little children who have passed on.  And there's nothing wrong with thinking that.  It's possible.  This would be the equivalent of teaching primary on earth.  So, just as a figurative shorthand, she said,"To think she's teaching primary in the next world" or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vort  @LeSellers,

Thank you for your commentary on repentance in the afterlife.  Estradling and I already clarified that I was using a more narrow definition of the word than he was.  You both seem to be using a broader definition, as did Estradling.  I partly suspected that, so I added the phrase --at least not in the manner you lay out here. to one of my posts to clarify.  Then once he clarified that he was using a broader definition, I conceded that it was a semantic argument.

@Vort

I understand what you are saying about Paul/Saul.  But many variants of the phrase "Saul became Paul" have traditionally been used throughout Christendom to refer to the changed nature/conversion of Paul -- the Pharisee vs. the Apostle.  And it was that figurative language, not the literal, that I was using.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No official doctrine or revelation has been given about polygamy in the afterlife. Will it occur? It may, it may not, we do not know yet. 

For now, those who profess it will happen are dead wrong. They are using their own poor judgement which is not based off of scripture, doctrine, or revelation. 

Others are mistakenly saying it will happen, because they secretly would love to have lots of wives. 

Dont listen to anyone who falsely tells you those. We simply do not have that information yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, goldenorange said:

No official doctrine or revelation has been given about polygamy in the afterlife. Will it occur? It may, it may not, we do not know yet. 

For now, those who profess it will happen are dead wrong. They are using their own poor judgement which is not based off of scripture, doctrine, or revelation. 

Others are mistakenly saying it will happen, because they secretly would love to have lots of wives. 

Dont listen to anyone who falsely tells you those. We simply do not have that information yet. 

 

In the recent history of this thread the only person using words like "Has to" and "Needed" is TurboGirl.  And she is a nonmember confused by what is going on with her father and step-mother.    All the members responding to her are challenging her "has to" and "needed" understanding.  The closest thing any member has said on the subject is that it is "possible" and then explained why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, goldenorange said:

No official doctrine or revelation has been given about polygamy in the afterlife. Will it occur? It may, it may not, we do not know yet. 

For now, those who profess it will happen are dead wrong.

Actually, your first paragraph contradicts your assertion. They may or may not be "dead wrong". We have plenty of reason to think they may be right. The truest answer is that such things have not been revealed to our generation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On 5/13/2016 at 7:04 AM, Carborendum said:

Turbogirl,

 or your step-mother is not right in the head.

 

You're right the woman is not right in the head. If she was the first Mormon I'd ever met I could easily see how people would say it was a Cult but luckily she is not there is many fine members of the church that do not believe the way she does. Sadly to report I did have a talk with my father about these issues and now I am not welcome in their house. I hardly have any relationship with him at all anymore. I have read conference and LDS.org talks about Eternal Marriage, and have talked to my heavenly father about the issues I've been having with my father being sealed to two women. And I just keep getting the answer thar polygamy is wrong, it's always been wrong, and it will always be wrong. We are all equal in our Heavenly Father's Eyes so why would He only asked His female children to live all of eternity with only half a spouse or even less than half an early Mormon Prophets days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TurboGirl said:

And I just keep getting the answer thar polygamy is wrong, it's always been wrong, and it will always be wrong. 

Nope, you are wrong on this issue. The scriptures say as much.  So if you are right then that means you know something many other prophets before you have said is morally acceptable when God commands.

Polygamy existed in ancient days, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob- many of the great Prophets of the past.  I highly doubt that God would command these great prophets to do something that if wrong would be so fundamentally wrong as Adultery is the 3rd greatest sin beside murder and denying the Holy Ghost And if it is wrong, then I highly doubt that God would have ever called them to be prophets considering how grave the sin of adultery is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

Nope, you are wrong on this issue. The scriptures say as much.  So if you are right then that means you know something many other prophets before you have said is morally acceptable when God commands.

Polygamy existed in ancient days, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob- many of the great Prophets of the past.  I highly doubt that God would command these great prophets to do something that if wrong would be so fundamentally wrong as Adultery is the 3rd greatest sin beside murder and denying the Holy Ghost And if it is wrong, then I highly doubt that God would have ever called them to be prophets considering how grave the sin of adultery is. 

How do you know that God commanded these prophets (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) to practice polygamy?

 

 

Edited by Alf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Alf said:

How do you know that God commanded these prophets (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) to practice polygamy?

 

 

Hagar was Abraham's wife's idea. There's no Bible evidence Isaac was a polygamist, and Jacob was tricked into marrying another woman before he finally got to marry Rachel who he really wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

Hagar was Abraham's wife's idea. There's no Bible evidence Isaac was a polygamist, and Jacob was tricked into marrying another woman before he finally got to marry Rachel who he really wanted.

Jacob had 4 women who he had sex with . . .riddle me that. And being tricked into it is now a legitimate excuse? I don't think so.

It is just amazing to me that a founding principle of the LDS church is tossed away so easily with the "I've prayed about it and I think it's wrong".  Real cognitive dissonance going on that people can believe JS was a prophet yet he erred on this subject.  

Sorry folks, not true and if you believe it then you would be the ones standing in line to have killed JS when he was alive.

D&C 132:1

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines

JS was lying here? Or was he just lying here and then purported to get revelation from God everywhere else, but in this one section he was lying? Was all the other revelation true revelation, but he just lied in this section?  

Either JS was a prophet and this is true or it's all false, no other way around it.

Edited by yjacket
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Jacob had 4 women who he had sex with . . .riddle me that. And being tricked into it is now a legitimate excuse? I don't think so.

It is just amazing to me that a founding principle of the LDS church is tossed away so easily with the "I've prayed about it and I think it's wrong".  Real cognitive dissonance going on that people can believe JS was a prophet yet he erred on this subject.  

Sorry folks, not true and if you believe it then you would be the ones standing in line to have killed JS when he was alive.

D&C 132:1

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines

JS was lying here? Or was he just lying here and then purported to get revelation from God everywhere else, but in this one section he was lying? Was all the other revelation true revelation, but he just lied in this section?  

Either JS was a prophet and this is true or it's all false, no other way around it.

Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't grow up Mormon, so I'm still trying to become more farmiliar with D&C. There's a lot in it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, yjacket said:

Nope, you are wrong on this issue. The scriptures say as much.  So if you are right then that means you know something many other prophets before you have said is morally acceptable when God commands.

Polygamy existed in ancient days, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob- many of the great Prophets of the past.  

Back in the day women were basically cattle, And a man needed as many children as he could get it just to survive and work his fields. Women had absolutely no rights back then, and could not even survive without her father or her husband and today we know this treatment of women is wrong that women can carry their own wait and make their own decisions. Even the New Testament cancels out that of the Old Testament. Just because something that far in the past seemed like the right thing to do we now know with better education that it was not the right thing to do. People and society have evolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, TurboGirl said:

Just because something that far in the past seemed like the right thing to do we now know with better education that it was not the right thing to do. People and society have evolved.

Do we really know or do we just think we know?  The problem with modern society is that we have so much hubris that we set at naught the laws of God.  Homosexuality is another example, we are so much more "evolved" that perversion of every kind is called good. I'd rather not trust current societies evolution that has destroyed the family. We are such a sanctimonious society, we think we know so much better than past generations, yet if we actually look good is called evil and evil good.

I'll trust the prophets rather than current society thank you very much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alf said:

Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't grow up Mormon, so I'm still trying to become more farmiliar with D&C. There's a lot in it.

No problem, apologies for coming off very short and terse; I personally have grown very frustrated with "believing" members of the church who want to pick and choose which parts of the restored gospel to believe in.  When the gospel conflicts with culture or society, they are apt to condemn the Church and former prophets rather than wonder if their own cultural bias and thinking is the thing that is wrong.

My apologies for lumping you into that group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Jacob had 4 women who he had sex with . . .riddle me that. And being tricked into it is now a legitimate excuse? I don't think so.

It is just amazing to me that a founding principle of the LDS church is tossed away so easily with the "I've prayed about it and I think it's wrong".  Real cognitive dissonance going on that people can believe JS was a prophet yet he erred on this subject.  

Sorry folks, not true and if you believe it then you would be the ones standing in line to have killed JS when he was alive.

D&C 132:1

Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines

JS was lying here? Or was he just lying here and then purported to get revelation from God everywhere else, but in this one section he was lying? Was all the other revelation true revelation, but he just lied in this section?  

Either JS was a prophet and this is true or it's all false, no other way around it.

The modern prophets denounce polygamy like it's the plague. Gordon B Hinckley condemned it on Larry King Live back in 1998. Then again Russell M Nelson and Dallin H Oaks are sealed to multiple women.

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