Polygamy in the afterlife?

[Tzesaro]

Resurrected post!

Look at this, we have the standard of God:

"The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise." - Plural marriage and families in early Utah

[The Folk Prophet]

I still maintain my opinion that Heavenly Father would not have sent his sons into mortal life with the knowledge that just because they are male, they would have a lesser chance of obtaining celestial glory.

This is an interesting thing to consider, however. The fact that God has foreknowledge, which we know He does, does not mean we lose our agency.

Unquestionably, God knows exactly who will and who won't make it to the Celestial Kingdom. He may well know that there will, actually, be more women than men. That does not mean men are less righteous or, rather, less capable of being righteous, but it may be a simply truth.

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that being male of female has absolutely no bearing on our chances for salvation. God is no respecter of persons in this regard. We have all been given the same chance, freely.

[Bini]

My husband already plans to volunteer himself for marriage to Anne Hathaway, Scarlett Johansen, and Emma Watson, if they are without sealings.

Well in that case

for Tom Hiddleston!

[The Folk Prophet]

Here's my thoughts on the thread, as I wasn't around for the original discussion:

Some seem to hold the viewpoint that they know what will make them happy -- that only they understand themselves. This is entirely false. Only the Lord truly understands us. Only the Lord knows what will make us happy.

Polygamy aside, the only path to the Celestial Kingdom is a complete and total sacrifice of ourselves. Our wills must be supplanted by His - no exceptions. His will matters, not ours.

That the Lord will not force us to do anything in the Celestial Kingdom that we don't want is clearly based on a false concept. It makes no sense. We know that there are very, very strict requirements for the Celestial Kingdom. And making it there will not put us in a position to then cast aside anything our fickle human selves didn't care for. In fact, if we have desires contrary to a Celestial state in our hearts, we certainly won't be going there. Apply the same philosophy to something we do know. If someone doesn't want to be married at all the Lord won't say, okay, you can go to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom anyway. Nor, once there, can we cast aside our spouse(s) because we would prefer to be an eternally single.

If plural marriage is a requirement of the Celestial Kingdom, then it is a requirement. Our personal feelings about it will have no bearing on it. It is true that God will not force us to accept marriage or plural marriage against our wills. But not within the scope of "in the Celestial Kingdom". Law is law. Personal desire plays no part in it.

I'm not arguing, to any degree, that plural marriage will be required there. We know from modern revelation that it is not. But not living it will certainly have nothing to do with "that's icky to me".

There have been some interesting philosophies though, which I'll address.

If more wives means greater glory, (and it is reasonable to view it that way from a certain point of view, I will admit) it will still have no bearing on what it actually means to be Celestialized. We know, for example, that Abraham currently sits on his throne, Celestialized, reigning in glory. That means he's ahead of us. Those already resurrected have a head start. Their glory will always be greater when we define glory in terms of posterity and worlds created. But that has nothing to do with us. That is the way that we eternally progress. And our state within that eternal progression has no meaning in comparison against others, because either way, our joy is full. Therefore, a man with more wives may be able to build their kingdoms faster. But so what? It doesn't matter. It is not a competition. And either way -- full joy.

I personally think there's something more to plural marriage than that...but it's only a sense I have from it. When I read the testimonies and stories of the early saints, their visions and angelic visitations, their hearts turned from bitter resentment to forceful defense of the principle, I cannot help but feel that when they saw the heavenly glory of it all in these visions that it was more than just about making spirit babies.

As to the "seed" not meaning spiritual posterity, nonsense. It clearly means that and the church has spoken of it in those terms since the afterlife was revealed to Joseph Smith. It means what it means. Instances of "seed" being used as metaphor (like the seed of Lucifer) don't mean all instances of "seed" mean the same. Logical fallacy.

We do not have to take Plural marriage upon ourselves in this life in this generation, so we really don't have to worry about it. But any attitude that is less than a full giving of ourselves and our will to the Lord will not merit us the promised reward.

[Suzie]

Well in that case

for Tom Hiddleston!

[Bini]

Yes, if women get to choose a second spouse, I will volunteer for Tom Hiddleston.

On a serious note, I really couldn't fathom being with anyone else but my own husband.

[Suzie]

Yes, if women get to choose a second spouse, I will volunteer for Tom Hiddleston.

On a serious note, I really couldn't fathom being with anyone else but my own husband.

I googled Tom Hiddleston that's why the ":mellow:"

[Seminarysnoozer]

This is an interesting thing to consider, however. The fact that God has foreknowledge, which we know He does, does not mean we lose our agency.

Unquestionably, God knows exactly who will and who won't make it to the Celestial Kingdom. He may well know that there will, actually, be more women than men. That does not mean men are less righteous or, rather, less capable of being righteous, but it may be a simply truth.

You are absolutely correct in pointing out that being male of female has absolutely no bearing on our chances for salvation. God is no respecter of persons in this regard. We have all been given the same chance, freely.

In 2012 6.6 million children died under the age of 5. That is just in one year! 18,000 die per day!

I think, relatively, the numbers of male and female righteous in the Celestial Kingdom are not going to be made up by those that lived full lives. The full life righteous will likely be a small percentage of those that find themselves in the Celestial Kingdom. With those numbers, the ratio of men and women is not going to be far from 1:1 as even if women are "more righteous" we are just talking about those that live full lives (or at least past the age of accountability).

[The Folk Prophet]

In 2012 6.6 million children died under the age of 5. That is just in one year! 18,000 die per day!

I think, relatively, the numbers of male and female righteous in the Celestial Kingdom are not going to be made up by those that lived full lives. The full life righteous will likely be a small percentage of those that find themselves in the Celestial Kingdom. With those numbers, the ratio of men and women is not going to be far from 1:1 as even if women are "more righteous" we are just talking about those that live full lives (or at least past the age of accountability).

A really appreciated this post. Every so often a comment really makes me think and this was one of them.

I'm not sure it really means much as to plural marriage numbers/men to women ratio for two reasons, however. The first has been pointed out. Just because the birth ratio is 1:1 now doesn't mean it will stay that way. China's discarding of baby girls has been mentioned, etc. So as much as I do think what you are saying is fairly reasonable, it certainly isn't a set-in-stone forgone conclusion that it means what you think it means. :)

The second thought, and where it really made me think, is that we actually don't understand how child deaths (under age 8) works in relationship to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom at all. We just don't have complete revelation on the matter. What we do know:

• Baptism for children under 8 is not required. (Moroni 8)
  
• The reason it is not required is because baptism is a redemptive ordinance and young children need no redemption being unable to sin. (Moroni 8)
  
• Current church policy is that children under 8 only need one ordinance to take place, only in the case of not being born in the covenant, whereupon they should be sealed to their parents. No other ordinances are required.
  
• Exaltation (highest level of the Celestial Kingdom) requires marriage. (D&C 132:17)
  
• Marriage ordinances must take place in mortality. (D&C 132:16)
  

I am not going to draw any conclusions from this because we just don't know, and I feel it would be improper to draw any conclusions. But it did sure get me thinking.

[Seminarysnoozer]

A really appreciated this post. Every so often a comment really makes me think and this was one of them.

I'm not sure it really means much as to plural marriage numbers/men to women ratio for two reasons, however. The first has been pointed out. Just because the birth ratio is 1:1 now doesn't mean it will stay that way. China's discarding of baby girls has been mentioned, etc. So as much as I do think what you are saying is fairly reasonable, it certainly isn't a set-in-stone forgone conclusion that it means what you think it means. :)

The second thought, and where it really made me think, is that we actually don't understand how child deaths (under age 8) works in relationship to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom at all. We just don't have complete revelation on the matter. What we do know:

• Baptism for children under 8 is not required. (Moroni 8)
  
• The reason it is not required is because baptism is a redemptive ordinance and young children need no redemption being unable to sin. (Moroni 8)
  
• Current church policy is that children under 8 only need one ordinance to take place, only in the case of not being born in the covenant, whereupon they should be sealed to their parents. No other ordinances are required.
  
• Exaltation (highest level of the Celestial Kingdom) requires marriage. (D&C 132:17)
  
• Marriage ordinances must take place in mortality. (D&C 132:16)
  

I am not going to draw any conclusions from this because we just don't know, and I feel it would be improper to draw any conclusions. But it did sure get me thinking.

Marion D. Hanks of the presidency of the seventies said; "Some may never have an opportunity to marry in this life. However, the Lord’s prophets have taught us that all that is beautiful and lovely about eternal partnership and family life will be available sometime, and with joy we cannot imagine here, to those individuals who endure to the end in Christlike living."

This was in a discussion about single adults but I would imagine it would apply even more so to children who die before the age of accountability.

Mossiah 15:25 " 25 And little children also have eternal life."

Bruce R. Mcconkie said when asked if little children who die before the age of 8 will have eternal life? said; "Eternal life is life in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is exaltation; it is the name of the kind of life God lives. It consists of a continuation of the family unit in eternity. We have quoted scriptures saying that children will be saved in the celestial kingdom, but now face the further query as to whether this includes the greatest of all the gifts of God—the gift of eternal life. And in the providences of Him who is infinitely wise, the answer is in the affirmative. Salvation means eternal life; the two terms are synonymous; they mean exactly the same thing. Joseph Smith said, “Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else.” (Lectures on Faith, pp. 63–67.) We have come to speak of this salvation as exaltation—which it is—but all of the scriptures in all of the standard works call it salvation. I know of only three passages in all our scriptures which use salvation to mean something other and less than exaltation.

Abinadi said, “Little children also have eternal life.” (Mosiah 15:25.) Joseph Smith taught, “Children will be enthroned in the presence of God and the Lamb; … they will there enjoy the fulness of that light, glory, and intelligence, which is prepared in the celestial kingdom.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 200.) President Joseph Fielding Smith spoke very expressly on this point: “The Lord will grant unto these children the privilege of all the sealing blessings which pertain to the exaltation. We were all mature spirits before we were born, and the bodies of little children will grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the spirit, and all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience, the same as if they had lived to maturity and received them on the earth. The Lord is just and will not deprive any person of a blessing, simply because he dies before that blessing can be received. It would be manifestly unfair to deprive a little child of the privilege of receiving all the blessings of exaltation in the world to come simply because it died in infancy. … Children who die in childhood will not be deprived of any blessing. When they grow, after the resurrection, to the full maturity of the spirit, they will be entitled to all the blessings which they would have been entitled to had they been privileged to tarry here and receive them.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:54.)"

I don't think there is any question about children who die before the age of 8 being able to marry.

[The Folk Prophet]

Marion D. Hanks of the presidency of the seventies said; "Some may never have an opportunity to marry in this life. However, the Lord’s prophets have taught us that all that is beautiful and lovely about eternal partnership and family life will be available sometime, and with joy we cannot imagine here, to those individuals who endure to the end in Christlike living."

This was in a discussion about single adults but I would imagine it would apply even more so to children who die before the age of accountability.

Mossiah 15:25 " 25 And little children also have eternal life."

Bruce R. Mcconkie said when asked if little children who die before the age of 8 will have eternal life? said; "Eternal life is life in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is exaltation; it is the name of the kind of life God lives. It consists of a continuation of the family unit in eternity. We have quoted scriptures saying that children will be saved in the celestial kingdom, but now face the further query as to whether this includes the greatest of all the gifts of God—the gift of eternal life. And in the providences of Him who is infinitely wise, the answer is in the affirmative. Salvation means eternal life; the two terms are synonymous; they mean exactly the same thing. Joseph Smith said, “Salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power and dominion which Jehovah possesses and in nothing else.” (Lectures on Faith, pp. 63–67.) We have come to speak of this salvation as exaltation—which it is—but all of the scriptures in all of the standard works call it salvation. I know of only three passages in all our scriptures which use salvation to mean something other and less than exaltation.

Abinadi said, “Little children also have eternal life.” (Mosiah 15:25.) Joseph Smith taught, “Children will be enthroned in the presence of God and the Lamb; … they will there enjoy the fulness of that light, glory, and intelligence, which is prepared in the celestial kingdom.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 200.) President Joseph Fielding Smith spoke very expressly on this point: “The Lord will grant unto these children the privilege of all the sealing blessings which pertain to the exaltation. We were all mature spirits before we were born, and the bodies of little children will grow after the resurrection to the full stature of the spirit, and all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience, the same as if they had lived to maturity and received them on the earth. The Lord is just and will not deprive any person of a blessing, simply because he dies before that blessing can be received. It would be manifestly unfair to deprive a little child of the privilege of receiving all the blessings of exaltation in the world to come simply because it died in infancy. … Children who die in childhood will not be deprived of any blessing. When they grow, after the resurrection, to the full maturity of the spirit, they will be entitled to all the blessings which they would have been entitled to had they been privileged to tarry here and receive them.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:54.)"

I don't think there is any question about children who die before the age of 8 being able to marry.

Awesome! I was going to do some research on this today myself. This saves me a fair amount of time. Was certainly what I would have presumed, and had I drawn a personal conclusion in my previous post it would be this.

One thought, in the Joseph Fielding quote the phrase, "...all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience..." has some interesting implications.

[Blackmarch]

I think this is a very good point. So, how do you view Polygamy then, as a doctrine or a principle?

sorry about the delay here ... but the thread dropped off my subscribed list before I was able to get back.. fortunately someone resurrected it.

For polygamy I believe the principles behind it are the same as marriage- lawful organization and unification for the purposes of family, progression and increase.

IMO that god has given polygamy at certain times but never the reverse makes me think that there will be certain situations or callings or some such in the where there will either be more females to males in numbers or that there will be some situation that requires it (beats me what that could be).

[Seminarysnoozer]

Awesome! I was going to do some research on this today myself. This saves me a fair amount of time. Was certainly what I would have presumed, and had I drawn a personal conclusion in my previous post it would be this.

One thought, in the Joseph Fielding quote the phrase, "...all the blessings will be theirs through their obedience..." has some interesting implications.

...because being "like a child", by definition, means obedient.

Yes, and the key point being that they will have a chance to be married for eternity, receiving all the blessings of those found in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

My speculation is that the majority of those found in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom are those that die before the age of 8.

President Eyring explains that to be like a child means to be obedient. Those two things cannot be separated. There is no such thing as a disobedient child in the eyes of the Lord. President Eyring (April 2006) As a Child; "Here is King Benjamin’s stirring description of what that change to become like a child is and how it comes to us:

“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.”

From King Benjamin we learn what we can do to take us to that safe place. But remember: the things we do are the means, not the end we seek. What we do allows the Atonement of Jesus Christ to change us into what we must be. Our faith in Jesus Christ brings us to repentance and to keeping His commandments. We obey and we resist temptation by following the promptings of the Holy Ghost. In time our natures will change. We will become as a little child, obedient to God and more loving. That change, if we do all we must to keep it, will qualify us to enjoy the gifts which come through the Holy Ghost. Then we will be safe on the only sure rock."

[Traveler]

...because being "like a child", by definition, means obedient.

Yes, and the key point being that they will have a chance to be married for eternity, receiving all the blessings of those found in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

...."

There is something missing to this puzzle. Most think of polygamy in terms of multiple wives. This would only be possible if there were more women in the Celestial Kingdom than men. Once this threshold is crossed then we must deal with the speculation of what is more blessed for all concerned - a one wife, few wife or many wife marriage and this is a can of worms that no one I know of, with any intelligence, would even think to consider. Then there is the other possibility - that one woman have multiple husbands.

The doctrine is that if we covenant with G-d we can have our marriage as an eternal covenant. The point of importance here is that we covenant with G-d. The understanding is that G-d will work with us to bring about a "fix". I do not see anything in any revelation that says the fix is polygamy. But if polygamy is the acceptable solution to all involved - which I see as more of a sacrifice than blessing - then it would work.

The problem I see is that for the most part - we seem to be counting our precious blessings as to what makes us Celestial and seem to think of sacrifices as some kind of curse that will no longer concern or burden Celestial beings.

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

...because being "like a child", by definition, means obedient.

Yes, and the key point being that they will have a chance to be married for eternity, receiving all the blessings of those found in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

My speculation is that the majority of those found in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom are those that die before the age of 8.

President Eyring explains that to be like a child means to be obedient. Those two things cannot be separated. There is no such thing as a disobedient child in the eyes of the Lord. President Eyring (April 2006) As a Child; "Here is King Benjamin’s stirring description of what that change to become like a child is and how it comes to us:

“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.”

From King Benjamin we learn what we can do to take us to that safe place. But remember: the things we do are the means, not the end we seek. What we do allows the Atonement of Jesus Christ to change us into what we must be. Our faith in Jesus Christ brings us to repentance and to keeping His commandments. We obey and we resist temptation by following the promptings of the Holy Ghost. In time our natures will change. We will become as a little child, obedient to God and more loving. That change, if we do all we must to keep it, will qualify us to enjoy the gifts which come through the Holy Ghost. Then we will be safe on the only sure rock."

Through their obedience could be read to mean (as you are presenting), because they were obedient (as little children are in this life).

Through their obedience could also rightly be read to mean, if they are obedient (in the next life).

It does not follow to suppose that because they were obedient in the past they must therefore be the same in the future, or, rather, that because they were as little children (actually being little children) that they will continue to be as little children.

Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you. And this is a single line in a single comment from one person (albeit from a prophet...though I don't know if he was the prophet when this was spoken).

I just don't take it as a foregone conclusion. Why? Because God will not force anyone. The concept that all children that die before the age of 8 will be in the top tier of the Celestial Kingdom implies that they will have no choice in the matter.

I think it more logical to presume that they will have no need for baptism (having no need for redemption from sin, having never sinned) but the other ordinances and the like will still have to be chosen by them (through obedience). How can this choice be taken away?

What we don't know is when and how these choices will be made. We don't know how much knowledge they will need first, how much faith will be required, how thin the veil will be, if it will come before or after resurrection and judgment, etc., etc... We just don't know.

Once again, I do not disagree with you. I think your presumptions are fairly viable. But I do think they are, in cases, presumptions.

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is something missing to this puzzle. Most think of polygamy in terms of multiple wives. This would only be possible if there were more women in the Celestial Kingdom than men. Once this threshold is crossed then we must deal with the speculation of what is more blessed for all concerned - a one wife, few wife or many wife marriage and this is a can of worms that no one I know of, with any intelligence, would even think to consider. Then there is the other possibility - that one woman have multiple husbands.

The doctrine is that if we covenant with G-d we can have our marriage as an eternal covenant. The point of importance here is that we covenant with G-d. The understanding is that G-d will work with us to bring about a "fix". I do not see anything in any revelation that says the fix is polygamy. But if polygamy is the acceptable solution to all involved - which I see as more of a sacrifice than blessing - then it would work.

The problem I see is that for the most part - we seem to be counting our precious blessings as to what makes us Celestial and seem to think of sacrifices as some kind of curse that will no longer concern or burden Celestial beings.

The Traveler

Where is the revelation that says that polygamy is an after mortality practice and then this whole discussion will be over.

Revelation does tell us that marriage is between one man and one woman, "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

Adam and Eve represent that kind of marriage.

What happens to the woman who is married in the temple who lives up to her covenants as best she can and would be considered worthy of an eternal marriage but her husband does not? Was the covenant that that woman made a help or a curse? Is the covenant broken for her? I would call it a help. Likewise, at certain times, women were allowed to receive the blessings and help of the everlasting covenant in their lives and the lives of their children through the practice of polygamy. But again this is just a practice for this life.

A lot of people's notions about the need for polygamy surround the mechanics of procreation in this world. But, we have no idea how long a spirit child's gestation is, for example. What if having a spirit child is instantaneous, no gestational period? Then there certainly is no advantage to having multiple wives from a procreation stand point. If God is not concerned about time or lives outside of time (as some suggest) then it wouldn't matter if God would have to wait 9 months, 9 seconds or 9 thousand years to have a spirit child. Then, again there would be no advantage to having multiple wives. It also isn't a matter of having multiple wives to take care of multiple children as we all know that we have one Father and we were all had intimate relationships with him before this life. The same could be said with us all having one Mother.

There really is no need for polygamy, even imagined, in the next life. Maybe I am spiritually blind to this matter but I cannot find a need to be "fixed".

[Vort]

Where is the revelation that says that polygamy is an after mortality practice and then this whole discussion will be over.

Many read Section 132 to say just that. It was certainly the opinion of most or all of the leading brethren that exaltation depended upon "plural marriage", which to them was all but synonymous with "the celestial order of marriage".

Revelation does tell us that marriage is between one man and one woman...Adam and Eve represent that kind of marriage.

Yes, but this means nothing in the discussion. A man with two wives has two marriages, not one. Each marriage is between one man (him) and one woman (whichever wife is involved). The wording of the Proclamation does not explicitly exclude plural marriage.

What happens to the woman who is married in the temple who lives up to her covenants as best she can and would be considered worthy of an eternal marriage but her husband does not? Was the covenant that that woman made a help or a curse? Is the covenant broken for her? I would call it a help. Likewise, at certain times, women were allowed to receive the blessings and help of the everlasting covenant in their lives and the lives of their children through the practice of polygamy. But again this is just a practice for this life.

To be fair, there is not even a small amount of LDS doctrine or practice to back up this supposition.

There really is no need for polygamy, even imagined, in the next life. Maybe I am spiritually blind to this matter but I cannot find a need to be "fixed".

I don't think you are spiritually blind. I do think you are speaking far beyond your knowledge in proclaiming "no need" for plural marriage in the eternities. I do not believe you could possibly know such a thing unless it had been revealed to you by God -- in which case, of course, you would be under covenant not to discuss it.

I understand your discomfort with polygamy. Many LDS women (and some men) share it. I have seen the idea bring numerous faithful LDS sisters to tears -- and they are not even called to live it! So I am happy to leave the topic mostly alone. But I will not back away from affirming that it was a commandment to the early Saints, that those Saints were righteous for having tried to keep God's commandment in that thing, and that the promises made to them (including that of eternal marriage to their spouses) must be as true as the promises made to us. I see no profit in discussing the matter much, but I see harm in bending over backward to convince ourselves that it's not an eternal principle at all.

If it's really that distressing to contemplate, my suggestion is to avoid contemplating it. Put it out of your mind. If God is good and just and kind and all those other Godly things we attribute to him, then our postmortal state will be glorious beyond comprehension, and our happiest day in mortality will be but a dim, dark reflection of the joy we will experience there on a constant basis.

If plural marriage is not an eternal principle, you have nothing to worry about, so quit worrying. And if plural marriage IS to be lived in the eternities, what of it? At that point, with the knowledge of the divine order that we will possess, we all, both men and women, will embrace it enthusiastically and happily, and thank God for the opportunity to live it. So you have nothing to worry about.

In either case, the moral is the same: You have nothing to worry about. So don't worry.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Many read Section 132 to say just that. It was certainly the opinion of most or all of the leading brethren that exaltation depended upon "plural marriage", which to them was all but synonymous with "the celestial order of marriage".

Yes, but this means nothing in the discussion. A man with two wives has two marriages, not one. Each marriage is between one man (him) and one woman (whichever wife is involved). The wording of the Proclamation does not explicitly exclude plural marriage.

To be fair, there is not even a small amount of LDS doctrine or practice to back up this supposition.

I don't think you are spiritually blind. I do think you are speaking far beyond your knowledge in proclaiming "no need" for plural marriage in the eternities. I do not believe you could possibly know such a thing unless it had been revealed to you by God -- in which case, of course, you would be under covenant not to discuss it.

I understand your discomfort with polygamy. Many LDS women (and some men) share it. I have seen the idea bring numerous faithful LDS sisters to tears -- and they are not even called to live it! So I am happy to leave the topic mostly alone. But I will not back away from affirming that it was a commandment to the early Saints, that those Saints were righteous for having tried to keep God's commandment in that thing, and that the promises made to them (including that of eternal marriage to their spouses) must be as true as the promises made to us. I see no profit in discussing the matter much, but I see harm in bending over backward to convince ourselves that it's not an eternal principle at all.

If it's really that distressing to contemplate, my suggestion is to avoid contemplating it. Put it out of your mind. If God is good and just and kind and all those other Godly things we attribute to him, then our postmortal state will be glorious beyond comprehension, and our happiest day in mortality will be but a dim, dark reflection of the joy we will experience there on a constant basis.

If plural marriage is not an eternal principle, you have nothing to worry about, so quit worrying. And if plural marriage IS to be lived in the eternities, what of it? At that point, with the knowledge of the divine order that we will possess, we all, both men and women, will embrace it enthusiastically and happily, and thank God for the opportunity to live it. So you have nothing to worry about.

In either case, the moral is the same: You have nothing to worry about. So don't worry.

Good advice! Thanks.

[The Folk Prophet]

Where is the revelation that says that polygamy is an after mortality practice and then this whole discussion will be over.

They're out there a-plenty. It's just hotly contested nowadays what constitutes a valid "revelation".

Revelation does tell us that marriage is between one man and one woman, "We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children."

Vort addressed this, but I'd like to point out that you will never find any material anywhere from the church that proclaims "one" man and "one" woman. They all use the word "a", which allows for Vort's explanation.

A lot of people's notions about the need for polygamy surround the mechanics of procreation in this world. But, we have no idea how long a spirit child's gestation is, for example. What if having a spirit child is instantaneous, no gestational period? Then there certainly is no advantage to having multiple wives from a procreation stand point.

What if having a spirit child is instantaneous? Then with 10 wives one could have 10 spirit children instantaneously, theoretically. As much as your we-don't-know-how-it-all-works point is valid, the rest of your reasoning doesn't demonstrate, logically, what you're trying to demonstrate.

If God is not concerned about time or lives outside of time (as some suggest) then it wouldn't matter if God would have to wait 9 months, 9 seconds or 9 thousand years to have a spirit child.

This is why, I agree, that child bearing, at best, can only possibly be part of the puzzle.

Then, again there would be no advantage to having multiple wives.

For the purpose of number of children, yes. Another reason that I suspect there is more to it than that.

It also isn't a matter of having multiple wives to take care of multiple children as we all know that we have one Father and we were all had intimate relationships with him before this life. The same could be said with us all having one Mother.

The idea of changing spirit-baby diapers pops into one's head. But I digress.

This idea is invalid ratio-wise. 1 wife = 1 billion spirit babies. 2 wives = 2 billion spirit babies. The taking-care-of ratio remains. Of course I'm piling assumptions onto assumptions, but you get the point, right?

There really is no need for polygamy, even imagined, in the next life....

...according to a fallible, mortal, self-centered, and -- indeed -- blind, logical processing of the information we have. (Please note: I am not calling you self-centered, just in case this is misread. I am saying that mankind, relatively, is inescapably self-centered because he/she is limited by a mortal perspective.)

I don't think you are spiritually blind. I do think you are speaking far beyond your knowledge...

Isn't that about saying the same thing? We are spiritually blind in this matter. No need to be concerned about it though. We are spiritually blind in any matter where we don't have complete revelation and/or a perfect understanding. Yeah...so in all matters, to some degree.

In either case, the moral is the same: You have nothing to worry about. So don't worry.

Except, I would contend, in the simple acceptance of, "Thy will be done" in all things, no matter what they be, be it polygamy or killing one's own son or leaving your family behind or whatever. Thy will, not mine, be done. This general attitude we need to worry about. In fact it should be our prime worry.

[FlyAway]

We, right now, as children of a Heavenly Father who have no memory of our pre-existence cannot truly understand the ways of Him who sent us. For if we understood completely the plan and knew of its surety then we would not act in faith. A loving father would never have us do something we believe to be wrong, but who is to say what our exalted selves will know and even understand? BusyB, if you can say out loud that you know the church is true and feel in your heart the validity of that statement, then everything else is details. Once you have an exalted perfect mind and body you'll probably experience love in a way you never have. You won't feel jealousy or envy, love will be perfect and selfless, the way it was meant to be.

I know it's a lame answer, but God will sort it all out. All of it. You have to have faith in that. There are things that tear at me that I don't understand, but when I bear my testimony I know the church is true and I go on faith that my Heavenly Father will explain everything when that time comes. I'm a newly wed college student, I don't need all the answers to the universe. I will know, one day. And that's all I need.

I have tons of questions, and I've only been a member for three years so if you want to talk, pm me. I understand.

[Lakumi]

I don't even want to get married once, letalone a bunch of times

heaven is supposed to be happy lol

[The Folk Prophet]

We, right now, as children of a Heavenly Father who have no memory of our pre-existence cannot truly understand the ways of Him who sent us. For if we understood completely the plan and knew of its surety then we would not act in faith. A loving father would never have us do something we believe to be wrong, but who is to say what our exalted selves will know and even understand? BusyB, if you can say out loud that you know the church is true and feel in your heart the validity of that statement, then everything else is details. Once you have an exalted perfect mind and body you'll probably experience love in a way you never have. You won't feel jealousy or envy, love will be perfect and selfless, the way it was meant to be.

I know it's a lame answer, but God will sort it all out. All of it. You have to have faith in that. There are things that tear at me that I don't understand, but when I bear my testimony I know the church is true and I go on faith that my Heavenly Father will explain everything when that time comes. I'm a newly wed college student, I don't need all the answers to the universe. I will know, one day. And that's all I need.

I have tons of questions, and I've only been a member for three years so if you want to talk, pm me. I understand.

Your thoughts are great and I really appreciated your post. Knowing the church is true and having faith and trust in that is the key. But I have to comment on one thing.

A loving father would never have us do something we believe to be wrong...

This is an untrue statement. A loving Father would have us do what will bring us happiness, in spite of what we believe. Our beliefs have nothing to do with what our Father would have us do. That is relative morality. Morality is not relative. Right is right, wrong is wrong. God sets those standards because only He knows what will actually bring us happiness. If we do not trust in Him, explicitly and in spite of our feelings, misery will be the result.

I understand that your point was an attempt to say that we won't actually feel bad about certain things when we achieve a Celestial state because we will then understand them. But I felt it important to clarify that if we let our own emotions sway us away from our Father's will then we won't ever make that Celestial state. This can be clearly seen in the 3rd of the hosts of heaven that were cast out. They were cast out because they felt differently than the Father.

We can also see examples of this in life. For example, Nephi being commanded to kill Laban. His feelings told him this was wrong. Had he listened to his feelings instead of following the will of the Lord, an entire nation would have dwindled in unbelief.

[FlyAway]

• 
  

This is an untrue statement. A loving Father would have us do what will bring us happiness, in spite of what we believe. Our beliefs have nothing to do with what our Father would have us do. That is relative morality. Morality is not relative. Right is right, wrong is wrong. God sets those standards because only He knows what will actually bring us happiness. If we do not trust in Him, explicitly and in spite of our feelings, misery will be the result.

You are right! I'm tired and have been out all day helping people in the Atl Snowpocalypse. I should rephrase that Heavenly Father knows what's best for us even if we can't comprehend it. It's all about faith. Thanks for the compliment as well. :)

Edited January 30, 2014 by FlyAway
bbc error

[Seminarysnoozer]

They're out there a-plenty. It's just hotly contested nowadays what constitutes a valid "revelation".

The idea of changing spirit-baby diapers pops into one's head. But I digress.

This idea is invalid ratio-wise. 1 wife = 1 billion spirit babies. 2 wives = 2 billion spirit babies. The taking-care-of ratio remains. Of course I'm piling assumptions onto assumptions, but you get the point, right?

This point, in my opinion, is a sexist point, and I don't get it. If one Father = 2 billion spirit babies then one Mother = 2 billion spirit babies. We know of no discrepancy between reproductive output between men and women in the afterlife. This is all based in Earthly experience and I think this is a male driven assumption. It is highly unlikely that one gender over the other would be a limiting factor in the reproductive rate.

If anything, we learn that a Celestial marriage requires equal capacities, even if roles are different. In understanding all we do about the requirement to make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom then "God" requires both a Heavenly Father and Mother that are one in their glory and power, and we only have one God. (i.e - one does not have a higher number than the other of 'bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man')

I accept the idea that whatever it is is what it is but there is no reasonable man-generated explanation for having multiple wives in the afterlife. Maybe this is my point, that sometimes we start to use man-generated arguments as if they are spiritually true and they become the foundation of thought rather than simply remaining assumptions. At the same time, I think it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that our Heavenly Mother and Father are equal in their power, glory and scope despite reverence to their individual roles in that union. In other words, whatever the Father does is our Mother's just like it is the other way too. The Mother has just as many children as the Father. (whatever the mechanism) It is unreasonable to suggest that the Mother has fewer children than the equal partnered Father.

[The Folk Prophet]

This point, in my opinion, is a sexist point, and I don't get it. If one Father = 2 billion spirit babies then one Mother = 2 billion spirit babies. We know of no discrepancy between reproductive output between men and women in the afterlife. This is all based in Earthly experience and I think this is a male driven assumption. It is highly unlikely that one gender over the other would be a limiting factor in the reproductive rate.

Yeah, I hate to tell you, but plural marriage is sexist, particularly according to contemporary politically correct sensibilities.

If anything, we learn that a Celestial marriage requires equal capacities, even if roles are different. In understanding all we do about the requirement to make it to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom then "God" requires both a Heavenly Father and Mother that are one in their glory and power, and we only have one God. (i.e - one does not have a higher number than the other of 'bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man')

What does capacity have to do with it? You're arguing the a second wife having extra spirit children is limiting the capacity of the first wife? That makes no sense.

I accept the idea that whatever it is is what it is but there is no reasonable man-generated explanation for having multiple wives in the afterlife. Maybe this is my point, that sometimes we start to use man-generated arguments as if they are spiritually true and they become the foundation of thought rather than simply remaining assumptions.

I could throw the same thing back at you with these man-generated fears, emotions, and excuse based reasoning. Moreover, you're pushing more onto me and others than is fair. Everything being said beyond what has been clearly revealed is assumption. Why are you presuming "foundation of thought"? Personally, my foundation of thought lies in the Atonement of the Savior and obedience to His will.

At the same time, I think it is a reasonable assumption to suggest that our Heavenly Mother and Father are equal in their power, glory and scope despite reverence to their individual roles in that union. In other words, whatever the Father does is our Mother's just like it is the other way too.

The problem is, this is an unsupportable assumption. Power, yes. Glory, yes. Scope? That's a stretch. We have no idea how it will work as far as scope and roles.

The Mother has just as many children as the Father. (whatever the mechanism) It is unreasonable to suggest that the Mother has fewer children than the equal partnered Father.

Once again, entirely unsupportable. I don't even know where this sort of thinking comes from. It seems like you're just making stuff up to suit your sense of things.

Look, you could be right, of course, but there really is no teaching, revelation, or evidence behind what you're saying. I mean, sure, you can find a ton of quotes about the equality of the relationship between husband and wife. None of them refers to our celestial state, and none of them applies to the literal ability to have babies.

If, for example, polygamy were to return in life, do you think the ideology of equality in the partnership would disappear? No. Of course not. As has been pointed out, each marriage is separate, and each is an equal partnership. But, yes, the Father ends up with more children than the individual mothers. The presumption that it simply can't work that way in the next life is nothing more than an emotional plea for something that you don't understand.

That's fine, of course. As I said, you may be right. But it's a bit funny to be calling other's thoughts man-made, and to not be admitting that your thoughts are the same.