Polygamy in the afterlife?

[Seminarysnoozer]

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

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 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.

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.

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.

I didn't mean to say, your foundation of though, I was speaking in general. And, I admit to the limitations of my understanding, thus the conversation.

We know that the work and the glory of God is to bring about the eternal life and immortality of His children. If that is the basis of His glory, at least in part, and you can agree to the idea that the Father and the Mother could have equal glory, then how is it possible that "the Father ends up with more children than the individual mothers"?

Maybe our definitions of "equal partnership" as far as it relates to a Celestial marriage are different. I guess I don't comprehend the idea of an "equal partnership" as a hundredth of all if the Father had one hundred wives. If one says the wives have some kind of sharing relationship with each other, then what is the point of marriage? The wives aren't married to each other.

The more I work on my own Celestial marriage the more adept I become at sharing all of my experiences with my husband and the more adept he becomes at appreciating them as well as I appreciating all of his experiences. Even the experiences that are considered role related, we share. I haven't encountered a time where my husband says, I am not going to share this experience with you, it is just for me. I can't imagine our Heavenly Father doing that either. But, like you said, that may just be my human emotional bias and not a spiritual based concept, even though being "one" with another seems far from any secular ideas I know.

[The Folk Prophet]

We know that the work and the glory of God is to bring about the eternal life and immortality of His children. If that is the basis of His glory, at least in part, and you can agree to the idea that the Father and the Mother could have equal glory, then how is it possible that "the Father ends up with more children than the individual mothers"?

How would you explain our sharing in God's glory then?

Maybe our definitions of "equal partnership" as far as it relates to a Celestial marriage are different. I guess I don't comprehend the idea of an "equal partnership" as a hundredth of all if the Father had one hundred wives. If one says the wives have some kind of sharing relationship with each other, then what is the point of marriage? The wives aren't married to each other.

Equal partnership, assuming we define it according to what you seem to be defining it as, is still a principle that pertains to mortality. We have no idea about equality in the Celestial sphere. What we do know is that we will have a fullness of joy, in spite of the fact, for example, that we will never be "equal" to God. But we will share in his full glory and have a fullness of joy.

We don't know the way it works. But it is not reasonably to infer a "lesser joy" status to a "lesser glory" status if we are viewing glory in terms of amounts of offspring. Whereas I accept that one explanation of Celestial glory relates to that, I do not think we're speaking with an equivalency of terms when we infer joy with glory according to that explanation.

Interesting discussion. Thanks for having it. I appreciate your insights.

[lds2]

One of the things that bothered me about this topic for a long time was what if the man preferred someone else more? But then I read in the D&C that sealings must be approved by God before they go into effect...(D&C 132) (and he knows the end from the beginning and He knows me better than I know myself.) That was all I really needed to know to be "good with it", what that tells me is I will be happy regardless because God is in control. FWIW I don't believe there has ever been a 50/50 split in the sexes, the government currently says that there are 107 boys born to every 100 girls in the world, historically it was closer to 105 boys to 100 girls born. (Wiki) Looking at my genealogy I see the overall trend of more boys than girls in my own family.

The real good news is that regardless, we will be part of God's family having made it back to our Heavenly Parents! Those who have died and come back say that the feeling they had in heaven is better than anything experienced here.

What I KNOW is that He wants us home with Him and He wants us to be happy. I want to help Him with His work here and there! I KNOW I can trust Him with my happiness for my eternal life...

Elder Nelson said,

“Because God wants His children back; it’s so simple.

“Any parent can understand that. You send your children off to kindergarten and the young mothers gulp. Then children go off to school, and then they go off to mission, and then they go off to education. Some go off to military duty. And you have but one desire, and that is that they’ll come home safely.”

A loving Heavenly Father has but two desires for His children, Elder Nelson said: immortality and eternal life, “which means life with Him back home.”

God Wants His Children to Return to Him, Elder Nelson Teaches - Church News and Events

Edited February 3, 2014 by lds2

[Seminarysnoozer]

FWIW I don't believe there has ever been a 50/50 split in the sexes, the government currently says that there are 107 boys born to every 100 girls in the world, historically it was closer to 105 boys to 100 girls born. (Wiki) Looking at my genealogy I see the overall trend of more boys than girls in my own family.

Yes! And this is why I think it is important to consider the magnitude of the number of souls that die before the age of 8. Under-5 mortality in 1990 was 12.4 million (in one year!). In 2012 was 6.6 million. Put that into perspective with the fact that there were roughly 18,000 members of the church in 1890. The estimates differ, but even if we say there were 30% practicing polygamy that would be 5,400 members for that year. If the population in the world was about 1.5 billion in 1890 and at a conservative .1% under age 5 mortality, that would mean 1.5 million souls will enter the Celestial Kingdom that year alone (if I am doing my math correctly).

Just for a second, picture all the souls in the Celestial Kingdom from that year alone, 1.5 million (from under 5 mortality) compared to the number of LDS living polygamy that year, 5,400. The percent involved in polygamy (even if all of them made it into the Celestial Kingdom which may be unlikely) is only 0.36% for that year only. It is an exponentially lower number as the years go by without polygamy.

Putting together the fact that more males are born than female really makes the numbers thing not a valid argument at all. If anything the numbers suggest it cannot be so, unless there are a disproportionate number of unmarried men in the Celestial Kingdom. But, again, the unmarried would have to be from that less than 0.36% pool.

(Traveler should be proud of me using Earthly logic to ponder this issue - just kidding!)

[Traveler]

...

(Traveler should be proud of me using Earthly logic to ponder this issue - just kidding!)

I always read your posts and consider them important; especially when I think we disagree. I find your logic excellent and value your point of view as critical to my own thinking. When you disagree with my logic - I carefully reconsider every point and often wonder how to better express points. Because I know you will not cave but will go to great lengths to validate every point. When you are not convinced - I know my logic is not complete. I strongly believe in peer review. Especially for my own ideas.

I will bate you and use you to keep myself better for it.

Thanks

The Traveler

[jerome1232]

Just to let you know, arguing from a statistical point of view is going to sway about 0 people in my opinion.

I'm really not sure why people give a mallard duck whether we will practice it or not then. It matters not.

[classylady]

Hmm, I don't know about that. Statistics could sway me in certain matters.

[Torostoros]

86% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[Lakumi]

86% of statistics are made up on the spot.

no. way!

[bytebear]

All I can say is that wherever we end up and who ever it's with, we will be joyful. No one is miserable in heaven.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Just to let you know, arguing from a statistical point of view is going to sway about 0 people in my opinion.

I'm really not sure why people give a mallard duck whether we will practice it or not then. It matters not.

To be swayed, by definition means that one has an opinion to be swayed. You are right, nobody can sway someone who doesn't want to have an opinion or whose stand is to not have an opinion one way or another. Thanks for joining the conversation just to say that you are not in the conversation. Obviously, 6000 plus views for this forum suggests a lot of people have an opinion about this topic.

[debi56]

My parents were sealed, my mother died before my father, he remarried and was sealed to his new wife.

It used to bother me that I might have to share my husband in the next life but as I have gotten older and have grown in the Gospel, this no longer bothers me. I figure that she and I will be good friends, and that Heavenly Father will make sure we all are happy. Do not worry about it, it will all be ok. If we have lived worthy, our reward will be eternal happiness not eternal jealousy.

[gfchase]

The idea of plural marriage is a difficult one to understand or have a desire to practice for almost all members of the church. Even among those who do understand the doctrine, very few have a desire to practice it, but recognize that when called upon to practice it in the eternities they will do so. Eternal life is impossible to gain without living this principle of plural marriage.

Plural marriage did not cease because it was not doctrinal, it was ceased because the U.S. Government enacted laws prohibiting the practice. May I suggest that you all read the entire 132nd section of the D&C, this has never been abrogated, it has only been put on hold. It is an eternal doctrine, BUT the practice of it within the church until the Lord again restores it, is to invite excommunication.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—1

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

WILFORD WOODRUFF

President of the Church of Jesus Christ

of Latter-day Saints.

President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

"I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding."

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous.

Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890.

EXCERPTS FROM THREE ADDRESSES

BY PRESIDENT WILFORD WOODRUFF

REGARDING THE MANIFESTO

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in*Deseret Evening News,*October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

It matters not who lives or who dies, or who is called to lead this Church, they have got to lead it by the inspiration of Almighty God. If they do not do it that way, they cannot do it at all. . . .

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in*Deseret Weekly,*November 14, 1891.)

Now I will tell you what was manifested to me and what the Son of God performed in this thing. . . . All these things would have come to pass, as God Almighty lives, had not that Manifesto been given. Therefore, the Son of God felt disposed to have that thing presented to the Church and to the world for purposes in his own mind. The Lord had decreed the establishment of Zion. He had decreed the finishing of this temple. He had decreed that the salvation of the living and the dead should be given in these valleys of the mountains. And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it. If you can understand that, that is a key to it. (From a discourse at the sixth session of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, April 1893. Typescript of Dedicatory Services, Archives, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.)

Jerry

Edited February 23, 2014 by gfchase

[garryw]

Eternal life is impossible to gain without living this principle of plural marriage.

the mandatory harem principle?

[Guest]

Funny, from my understanding, eternal life has already been purchased for all by our Savior.

[Just_A_Guy]

Eternal life is impossible to gain without living this principle of plural marriage.

Are you sure about that?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Eternal life is impossible to gain without living this principle of plural marriage.

Jerry

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

What little child lived the principle of plural marriage?

More boys die under the age of 5 than girls. There are children who have died that now have eternal life. They have it now! Your statement is false.

Bruce R. McConkie; "Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom?

To this question the answer is a thunderous yes. Jesus taught it to his disciples. Mormon said it over and over again. Many of the prophets have spoken about it, and it is implicit in the whole plan of salvation. If it were not so the redemption would not be infinite in its application. And so, as we would expect, Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom contains this statement: “And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the year of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” (D&C 137:10.)"

Bruce R. McConkie: "Will they have eternal life?

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.)"

Did Jesus Christ practice plural marriage?

[gfchase]

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

What little child lived the principle of plural marriage?

More boys die under the age of 5 than girls. There are children who have died that now have eternal life. They have it now! Your statement is false.

Bruce R. McConkie; "Are all little children saved automatically in the celestial kingdom?

To this question the answer is a thunderous yes. Jesus taught it to his disciples. Mormon said it over and over again. Many of the prophets have spoken about it, and it is implicit in the whole plan of salvation. If it were not so the redemption would not be infinite in its application. And so, as we would expect, Joseph Smith’s Vision of the Celestial Kingdom contains this statement: “And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the year of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.” (D&C 137:10.)"

Bruce R. McConkie: "Will they have eternal life?

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.)"

Did Jesus Christ practice plural marriage?

Absolutely little children will inherit eternal life. They will not however live it as children. As adults they will be given spouses and will live the eternal law.

D&C 132:24-39 is the core but the entire section should be read. Please read and ponder prayerfully and you should come to understand.

24 This is eternal lives—to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.

25 Broad is the gate, and wide the way that leadeth to the deaths; and many there are that go in thereat, because they receive me not, neither do they abide in my law.

26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

28 I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.

29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

35 Was Abraham, therefore, under condemnation? Verily I say unto you, Nay; for I, the Lord, commanded it.

36 Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless, it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.

37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.

38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 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; and, therefore he 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.

Jerry

[Just_A_Guy]

Jerry, D&C 132 is somewhat ambiguous and, with all due respect, lots of people with more authority than you have reached the opposite conclusion. One interpretation is that "the law" is receiving all things by revelation and commandment (i.e. perfect obedience), whereupon one receives the promise of innumerable seed and thereby attains exaltation (vv 28-31). Abraham's polygamous marriages with Hagar--and, later (technically) Keturah--were means by which Abraham fulfilled the underlying commandment and attained the promise of innumerable seed. Polygamy, in this interpretation, wasn't an end; it was a means to an end.

[Guest]

From Jacob 2 (bold mne)

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Jerry, D&C 132 is somewhat ambiguous and, with all due respect, lots of people with more authority than you have reached the opposite conclusion. One interpretation is that "the law" is receiving all things by revelation and commandment (i.e. perfect obedience), whereupon one receives the promise of innumerable seed and thereby attains exaltation (vv 28-31). Abraham's polygamous marriages with Hagar--and, later (technically) Keturah--were means by which Abraham fulfilled the underlying commandment and attained the promise of innumerable seed. Polygamy, in this interpretation, wasn't an end; it was a means to an end.

Thanks! Exactly!

The eternal principle is obedience and following the direction from God outlined in those verses, not polygamy.

Just because commandments are given and some are found obedient to them does not automatically mean they will be practiced in the eternities. I wonder what gfchase thinks about animal sacrifice in the next life or circumcision (not just of the heart).

As already stated, those that die before the age of 8 obviously did not have any "seed" in this life and yet have Eternal Life. The promise of "innumerable seed" has nothing to do with how many children one has in this life unless such a commandment was given to that individual via revelation and commandment and the opportunity given. It is not a universal commandment such as is the everlasting covenant.

[gfchase]

Is this enough authority for you? From Joseph F. Smith:

Some people have supposed that the doctrine of*plural*marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or*exaltation*of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an*exaltation*as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part—and is good so far as it goes—and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, he very naturally shrank, in his feelings, from the responsibilities thereby imposed upon him; foreseeing, as he did in part, the apparently insurmountable difficulties in the way of establishing it, in the face of the popular opinion, the traditions and customs of many generations, the frowns, ridicule, slander, opposition and persecutions of the word. Yes, this man of God, who dared to meet the opposition of the whole world with bold and fearless front, who dared to dispute the religious authority and accumulated learning and wisdom of the age—who dared everything for the truth, and shrank not even from the sacrifice of his own life in testimony of his divine mission, shrank, in his feelings, from the weight of the responsibility of inaugurating and establishing this new innovation upon the established customs of the world. But he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine.

Jerry

[Just_A_Guy]

I have no problem with the quote you provide, but it may be worth noting that that comes from Elder Joseph F. Smith in 1878, when he had been an apostle for less than a year. And of course, in that same discourse he explained that plural marriage is "applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise"; and also added:

"But," says one, "how will it be with good men who believe the doctrine, but are prevented, or cannot enter into the practice of it?" I reply that every man and woman will receive all that they are worthy of, and something thrown in perhaps, on the score of the boundless charity of God. But who can justly expect to obtain more than they merit? All the judgments of God are not given unto man.

Even Elder Smith doesn't go so far as to say that polygamy--in this life or the next--is absolutely requisite for "eternal life". What he's saying is that the exaltation of a monogamist will not be as "great and glorious" as that of a polygamist. Since a key blessing of the Abrahamic covenant/exaltation is seed, and polygamists tend to have more children than monogamists, I have no problem at all reconciling Smith's statement here with the general proposition that eternal life can be attained without ever entering into polygamy.

And of course, if you're implying that polygamy must be practiced in this life (as opposed to merely in the eternities)--I'll see your ambiguous quote from a green apostle, and raise you a Lorenzo Snow, a George Q. Cannon, and multiple quotes from Brigham Young himself indicating the opposite.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[gfchase]

I have no problem with the quote you provide, but it may be worth noting that that comes from Elder Joseph F. Smith in 1878, when he had been an apostle for less than a year. And of course, in that same discourse he explained that plural marriage is "applicable to all gospel dispensations, when commanded and not otherwise"; and also added:

Even Elder Smith doesn't go so far as to say that polygamy--in this life or the next--is absolutely requisite for "eternal life". What he's saying is that the exaltation of a monogamist will not be as "great and glorious" as that of a polygamist. Since a key blessing of the Abrahamic covenant/exaltation is seed, and polygamists tend to have more children than monogamists, I have no problem at all reconciling Smith's statement here with the general proposition that eternal life can be attained without ever entering into polygamy.

And of course, if you're implying that polygamy must be practiced in this life (as opposed to merely in the eternities)--I'll see your ambiguous quote from a green apostle, and raise you a Lorenzo Snow, a George Q. Cannon, and multiple quotes from Brigham Young himself indicating the opposite.

I am aware of when he said this as I have read it in its entirety. Ambiguous? I think it was pretty straight forward and to the point.

I am sure that I have read the statements from those you mention and I think that if you will read them closely you will find that they say something to the order that exaltation is possible without living the law of the Patriarchal Order. In fact Joseph F. also says this. If people are willing to accept less than they can achieve that is their right. I think you should go back and read again what he said. He explains very clearly that you can have one wife through the eternities but cannot obtain ALL of the blessings available without living this law. So the question is what is to be achieved from living it? It is to become like our Father in Heaven. We cannot do that without living this law when the time comes that it is given again. As I said from the beginning this law is very difficult to understand and obey. Even Joseph Smith was reluctant. It took more than 10 years after it was revealed to him for him to bend his will to that of Father.

I am not a fundamentalist and I HAVE NEVER IMPLIED THAT PLURAL MARRIAGE MUST BE PRACTICED IN THIS LIFE. In fact if you will go back and READ what I have said you will find that it could be well after this life. It is by the laws of man and God that it not be practiced until the Lord again commands it, which I would suspect will come in the millennium.

Jerry

[Just_A_Guy]

I am aware of when he said this as I have read it in its entirety. Ambiguous? I think it was pretty straight forward and to the point.

Incidentally, for the benefit of anyone who's following this discussion, here's a link to the text of the sermon in question.

I am sure that I have read the statements from those you mention

I should hope so, since I previously linked right to them!

So the question is what is to be achieved from living it? It is to become like our Father in Heaven. We cannot do that without living this law when the time comes that it is given again. As I said from the beginning this law is very difficult to understand and obey.

Oh, Smith clearly states that the principle could help people develop the qualities that God possesses, and I don't disagree. But even Smith refuses to speculate on whether plural marriage will be required in the eternities for those who didn't have a chance to live it in this life; merely observing that final judgment is up to the Lord. I'm a little confused as to why you seem to insist on going further than Smith does. It is one thing to say a polygamist may enjoy a higher reward than a monogamist. It's another to say that, at some point, polygamy will be required of all who desire eternal life. The first is justifiable; the second is not. The Lord Himself taught that "in my Father's house are many mansions".

I HAVE NEVER IMPLIED THAT PLURAL MARRIAGE MUST BE PRACTICED IN THIS LIFE.

Jerry, I think what threw some of us was your statement that "Eternal life is impossible to gain without living this principle of plural marriage."

Edited February 27, 2014 by Just_A_Guy