Polygamy in the afterlife?

[Anddenex]

11 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

 if Im worthy enough to make it there. 

The decision of worthiness is made everyday, and is our choice (nothing dealing with fate or predestination). The Tree of Life vision is cyclic symbolism of the process of coming unto Christ and being perfected in him.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Zarahemla, if we were to take one principle, one doctrine, that is primary to every other doctrine the doctrine/principle would be "Agency." Us men are in an intriguing position with regards to our companion and the afterlife. I believe in the principle once shared with me, "God will not force a woman to stay with a man she doesn't want to for the eternities." Imagine being that man in that position after the resurrection and during judgement. 

Will God force then any woman to live polygamy, assuming polygamy is a part of the eternities? No, this would go against "agency" which God has given us. 

Part of the gospel is to make a stand, like you have regarding a belief. The most important part though are we humble enough to change when truth is received? This is why I am intrigued by members enmity toward possible truths. If true, and is good, why would we reject it? If not true, which is also good, why would we reject it if we love truth? Jesus is the way, "the truth", and life. To become like Christ means we are willing to accept all truth, even truth which current we detest. Either way, if we move forward trusting in God we will never be lead astray with any man made doctrine and that is a comforting truth.

Agency yes. I will only want to be sealed to women who use their agency to want to be sealed to me and I will use my agency to want to be sealed to all of them. See how your agency logic works.

[Anddenex]

32 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

See how your agency logic works.

You have lost me with this sentence. Agency is a key principle/doctrine of the gospel, not my logic. 

Edited October 9, 2016 by Anddenex

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

You have lost me with this sentence. Agency is a key principle/doctrine of the gospel, not my logic. 

I'm saying women and I can use our agency to live Celestial polygamy. I've spoken with LDS girls who are okay being a plural wife. It's everyone's choice or agency.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Hagar, Abrahams second wife, was given to him by the Lord through Sarai. A Biblical story that I have sought to understand more is Hagar's experience after being mistreated by Sarai and Hagar flees. An angel from the Lord commands Hagar to go back submit herself unto Sarai, implying also that she would continue to be Abram's second wife. If polygamy was wrong now, and wrong then (although it wasn't/isn't in these scenarios) why would God command her to return? God is good, and when commanded by God to practice polygamy is good also, as all things which come from God are good. To say anything less would mean we are listening to the wrong spirit, unless we tread on that dangerous ground in calling God, not good.

This is a great point, but how do we distinguish between that scenario and Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon?

As a church we are slowly getting better about avoiding presentism in our approach to the scriptures; but the downside to that is that we sometimes tend to--for lack of a better word--infantilize, or de-humanize, the subjects of scriptural stories.  We assume that Jacob didn't love Rachel as a modern man loves his wife; that Laban wasn't concerned for his daughters' financial well-being; that Moses and other Israelite men thought it entirely natural for a woman to have to marry her rapist; that Joshua had no problem perpetrating genocide.  I think perhaps there is a trace of that going on in Turbogirl's post.

To me stories of polygamy turn up in the scriptures not because its practitioners thought it was easy; but because it was terribly hard.  Life is less of a material struggle now than it was then; but I don't think human nature is really all that different.  After all--if Abraham wanted to marry Hagar, he would have taken her as a concubine from the time she entered his household rather than waiting until he learned of Sarah's barrenness.  Similarly, Jacob only asked for Rachel--not Rachel and Leah.  These are not the actions of men who thought women to be interchangeable or expendable; and I think we do the scriptural authors (and ourselves) a disservice when we duck the hard questions these stories invite us to ask.  Marital love and romantic passion existed long before Byron and Shelley started writing about it.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This is a great point, but how do we distinguish between that scenario and Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon?

I am not sure I am completely understanding what is being distinguished, please elaborate?

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As a church we are slowly getting better about avoiding presentism in our approach to the scriptures; but the downside to that is that we sometimes tend to--for lack of a better word--infantilize, or de-humanize, the subjects of scriptural stories.  We assume that Jacob didn't love Rachel as a modern man loves his wife; that Laban wasn't concerned for his daughters' financial well-being; that Moses and other Israelite men thought it entirely natural for a woman to have to marry her rapist; that Joshua had no problem perpetrating genocide.  I think perhaps there is a trace of that going on in Turbogirl's post.

Agreed, and this tendency to de-humanize scriptural stories is unfortunate, especially since we do not know all the facts, thoughts, and prayers that went into major decisions. It causes me to wonder if my actions (although I am doing my best to my knowledge) will be de-humanized by "well-intentioned" individuals in the future if they were to read my journal. This reminds me of one of my family members recent emails to me, and how due to limited knowledge they sought to explain events from a one-sided view, which we often do (including myself). God has a perfect picture.

10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To me stories of polygamy turn up in the scriptures not because its practitioners thought it was easy; but because it was terribly hard.  Life is less of a material struggle now than it was then; but I don't think human nature is really all that different.  After all--if Abraham wanted to marry Hagar, he would have taken her as a concubine from the time she entered his household rather than waiting until he learned of Sarah's barrenness.  Similarly, Jacob only asked for Rachel--not Rachel and Leah.  These are not the actions of men who thought women to be interchangeable or expendable; and I think we do the scriptural authors (and ourselves) a disservice when we duck the hard questions these stories invite us to ask.  Marital love and romantic passion existed long before Byron and Shelley started writing about it.

I also believe one of the primary reasons is that it was commanded by God, and thus written. Could you imagine how much more persecution the Latter-day Saints would receive if there weren't any records of polygamy as commanded by God? 

And this I find to be most true (which we all have to continue to humble ourselves), "I think we do the scriptural authors (and ourselves) a disservice when we duck the hard questions these stories invite us to ask." This statement is most true, and is the reason why so many struggle. They esteem God within their own light, their own comfort, rather than what is actually true. Similar to the Atheist, x-member, who is looking for a God (with evidence) that conforms to their limited knowledge rather than asking the hard questions and a willingness to accept these hard questions.

The Old Testament, even the New Testament (the couple that gave up the ghost because they had kept some money back, ouch!) has stories that we can de-humanize (if I understood you correctly), or we humble ourselves to ask the hard, and the right question to understand the truth. My experience, if we begin with the truth -- God is good -- it is easier to find the answer to these tough questions (as learned by the Spirit), and I have discovered when you learn that people often must learn the same truth from the Spirit, because I have the hardest time trying to explain it.

[The Folk Prophet]

14 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Will God force then any woman to live polygamy, assuming polygamy is a part of the eternities? No, this would go against "agency" which God has given us. 

I'm sorry Anddenex, but this is just not accurate. God will, indeed, "force" certain things in order for people to qualify for the Celestial kingdom. Agency is not a principle of "you can do whatever you want and still be exalted."

[Anddenex]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm sorry Anddenex, but this is just not accurate. God will, indeed, "force" certain things in order for people to qualify for the Celestial kingdom. Agency is not a principle of "you can do whatever you want and still be exalted."

We disagree, pertaining to "force" -- and I never said agency is a principle of we can do whatever we want and still be exalted.

Edited October 9, 2016 by Anddenex

[Just_A_Guy]

29 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am not sure I am completely understanding what is being distinguished, please elaborate?

Well, in Hagar's case we have an angel telling Hagar to return to the institution whence she had fled; and we assume therefore that God sanctions the institution (polygamy).

In Philemon Paul tells Onesimus to return to the institution whence *he* had fled--slavery.  On what basis do we avoid concluding that God sanctions the institution of slavery?

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

We disagree.

Really? God doesn't require anything to qualify for the Celestial Kingdom? Baptism? Marriage? Obedience?

There tends to be a view out there in the world that because God wants us to be happy (a true pinciple) that He will therefore not require anything of us that we don't like (a false principle). God does have requirements for the Celestial Kingdom. That is indisputable whether you agree or not. Whether plural marriage is one of those requirements is unknown. But if it is, it is. Whether people "like" it or not is irrelevant. Agency is the right to choose to decline both the obedience to any given principle AND to accept the consequence of that choice. If one chooses to decline baptism, one also chooses to decline salvation. If one chooses to decline marriage by sealing, one chooses to decline exaltation. If plural marriage is required for the Celestial Kingdom then one can choose to decline it in the same way...but one will be choosing to decline the reward as well.

And I don't believe for a second that you actually believe that agency is a principle of being able to do whatever you want and still gain exaltation.

[The Folk Prophet]

22 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

We disagree, pertaining to "force" -- and I never said agency is a principle of we can do whatever we want and still be exalted.

Force is just another word for "require", and when set with conditionals is perfectly appropriate if one is willing to understand. It is the "in order to qualify" that makes it work. Particularly when there is such a misunderstanding about what it actually means to "force". If we go with the literal "no choice" thing then yes, God obviously doesn't force. If we go with the general idea of force as most people understand it, as in "do this or else pay this consequence" then God does force. So that's really a semantic issue. I'll grant that in scriptural and other LDS religious terms that we tend to not speak of things that way. And that's fine. We can take the word "force" out of it and the principle doesn't change. That is, God may well require women to live polygamy to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. Arguing about whether that may appropriately be termed "force" or not isn't the point.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Force is just another word for "require", and when set with conditionals is perfectly appropriate if one is willing to understand. It is the "in order to qualify" that makes it work. Particularly when there is such a misunderstanding about what it actually means to "force". If we go with the literal "no choice" thing then yes, God obviously doesn't force. If we go with the general idea of force as most people understand it, as in "do this or else pay this consequence" then God does force. So that's really a semantic issue. I'll grant that in scriptural and other LDS religious terms that we tend to not speak of things that way. And that's fine. We can take the word "force" out of it and the principle doesn't change. That is, God may well require women to live polygamy to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom. Arguing about whether that may appropriately be termed "force" or not isn't the point.

Force is not another word for require, not in the least. We disagree, God does not force anyone into salvation. 

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, in Hagar's case we have an angel telling Hagar to return to the institution whence she had fled; and we assume therefore that God sanctions the institution (polygamy).

In Philemon Paul tells Onesimus to return to the institution whence *he* had fled--slavery.  On what basis do we avoid concluding that God sanctions the institution of slavery?

Thank you, and that clarifies for me what you were meaning, and is an excellent point. 

[Anddenex]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On what basis do we avoid concluding that God sanctions the institution of slavery?

My first thoughts JAG after reading your clarification revolve around three principles/doctrines/commandments: 

1) God commanded polygamy
2) King Benjamin's address, "nor that ye should make slaves one of another" -- a note in the Book of Mormon that man should not own another man, and when Ammon and the Lamanites were returning the Lamanites were willing to become "slaves" to repair their host of wickedness but Ammon said, "It is against the law of our brethren, which was established by my father, that there should be any slaves among them." I was positive there was a D&C verse that specified man should not own another man and it is not lawful, but can't find it.
3) God has commanded us "in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." The law at this time in Rome had slavery. I believe we can agree that God doesn't agree with Communism; although, God still commands his sons and daughters to obey the laws within their government. In East Germany, we were able to build a temple and our brethren were still allowed to worship and if I am remembering correctly from President Monson is that the government made a statement to the Church something to the nature of, "Your members, and you also, honor our laws and keep them. You can build a temple."

In light of these three, I believe we are able to find our answer. God may not agree with a practice within any given government; however, although he may disagree he still commands his children to "obey, honor, and sustain the law." Polygamy not only was a part of the law, we also know God commanded it and sanctioned it even in our modern day. We have modern revelation for this. As a government, the people, draw closer to God (the time during the Law of Moses was unique to itself as the Schoolmaster), slavery is one principle that appears to be commanded against. These are some of my thoughts JAG.

Edit: I am not sure though JAG, if slavery and all its forms are fully against God's will and pleasure. There is an aspect of slavery (indentured servant) that appears to be in-line with some true principles, but maybe calling an indentured servant -- slavery -- isn't correct also. It is lawful that a man/woman pays there debts, and if they can't by their own means, then working for the man/woman someone owes money to isn't a bad thing.

 

Edited October 10, 2016 by Anddenex

[yjacket]

13 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Edit: I am not sure though JAG, if slavery and all its forms are fully against God's will and pleasure. 

I think of most slavery in a different form; it was a function of the world they lived in for very practical reasons. First off we must remember that "laws" as we currently have, i.e. codified, written down and enforceable are very much a modern function. For most societies over the span of history very few laws were actually written down, The Code of Hammurabi, The Bible, etc. Government as a function was much smaller then it is today and was much more private too.  The King was in essence a private owner of the land and territories in his possession, i.e. literally "The King's Highway".

The actual function of building a prison and holding people in prison was/is extremely costly; to house people in a jail cell and keep them alive is expensive.  So what do you do with someone who has broken an unwritten law or code of conduct?  You can't kill everyone for stealing a loaf of bread; and cutting of hands can also be challenging and it doesn't repay the wrong done.  To build a jail and monitor them requires a lot of productive resources. So you enslave them.  What do you do with a conquered people? You're options are either to butcher the entire lot of them or enslave them. In fact, much of slavery that has existed was different than the slavery in the US.  Most ancient slaves had the ability to work their way out of slavery, to become citizens of the country (in the case of Rome), etc.

[Guest]

Why are church members always not 100 percent sure on this issue? Is it because leaders don't address it once and for all today?

[Guest]

Something that's worth mentioning. The journals and accounts by women and men who lived polygamy in the 1800s said love wasn't involved in the plural marriages, it was more loveless obedience. I've read ancestors journals who said polygamy lacked love. In reading scriptures I see no love Abraham has for Hagar, he even allows Sarah to kick her out. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. No chance to feel love. Brigham Young had 55 wives but only fathered children with 16 of them and said they could leave if they weren't happy. No fighting for love. To me polygamy = no love, just obedience and duty. After reading the Joseph Smith book Rough Stone Rolling, when it talks about Joseph's polygamy it's obvious he didn't love these other women and barely interacted with them. I'm sure he only loved Emma. I won't even mention what Heber C Kimball said to show polygamy is NOT love. Love should be the driving force for marriage.

[Anddenex]

30 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

Why are church members always not 100 percent sure on this issue? Is it because leaders don't address it once and for all today?

What issue Zarahemla, polygamy in this life or polygamy in the next life? We are 100% sure that God commanded polygamy and that the practice is lawful when God commands it. The second option is because it has not been revealed, which leaves us to search, ponder, and pray for ourselves. We may have received witness, and we can share this witness; although, it still remains that any member can say, and rightfully so, what evidence is scripture or modern revelation can we read that confirms your witness? If we can't provide any, then the individual can say, "Thank you for your thoughts and opinion." This is their choice. Truth however doesn't change with our personal beliefs. Truth is truth. Error is error. 

I would disagree that polygamy is 100% loveless obedience. Do we have history of polygamy being loveless obedience, sure. 

Edit: Yes, if a doctrine has not been revealed then members will have differences of thoughts and opinions, and until it is addressed openly the Church will not claim 100% one way or the other; although, lets say the Church, through its prophets, did reveal it was true. There would still be members who would reject this truth, if it were revealed as such.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Anddenex

[Sunday21]

Zara, for heaven's sake man, give it a rest. I suspect that you are wierding out potential celestial companions. Take up a hobby! Get a calling. Go to the temple. 

[Jane_Doe]

48 minutes ago, Zarahemla said:

Why are church members always not 100 percent sure on this issue? Is it because leaders don't address it once and for all today?

We don't belong to a church that pretends to know everything.  Particularly about the wonders of the afterlife, "we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  (9th AoF)

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Zarahemla said:

To me polygamy = no love, just obedience and duty. 

I disagree, but I also disagree that "romantic" love has been the way the world worked for thousands of years.  Romantic love is a relatively modern invention; this isn't to say there were never romantic love, but that is one of the reasons why romantic love was such a great story. Abraham sent a servant to find a wife for Isaac; arranged marriages have been a norm for a long time.

We have this modern idea that you just love someone, i.e. it is spontaneous and you either love them or you don't (i.e. romantic love), which is completely backwards and IMO is one of the big drivers of divorce (we just "fell out" of love). Love is something that takes work, you have to work at loving someone, especially your spouse b/c more than anyone else you will know more of your spouses faults (and they yours) than anyone else.  And to love someone despite all their flaws and imperfections and problems isn't something that just comes spontaneously or naturally. It takes an active choice.  Now certainly due to certain flaws and faults some people are easier to love than others, but regardless, spousal love is quite different than "romantic" love.

So maybe you don't see "romantic" love in the letters (i.e. the fawning over how they like their spouses hair, or their ascent, or the way they dress, or repeating how their souse is the man/woman of their dreams, etc.,etc., etc.) but I bet you do see a tremendous amount of spousal love-it's just a different manifestation of it.  It is extremely foreign to most people b/c they are looking for the romantic love vs. spousal love and unconditional love.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

We disagree, God does not force anyone into salvation. 

I didn't say that. And you know darned well that I didn't.

[Just_A_Guy]

14 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

Why are church members always not 100 percent sure on this issue? Is it because leaders don't address it once and for all today?

Frankly:  Because they don't want to be.  Because in spite of the plain text of certain scriptural passages, the prospect that any polygamist may enter into the Celestial Kingdom with all his spouses is extremely disconcerting to a small subset of Mormons; and if it keeps these folks in the Church the rest of us have (for better or for worse) indulged a degree of ambiguity that isn't really consistent with our scriptures or our history. 

12 hours ago, yjacket said:

I disagree, but I also disagree that "romantic" love has been the way the world worked for thousands of years.  Romantic love is a relatively modern invention; this isn't to say there were never romantic love, but that is one of the reasons why romantic love was such a great story. Abraham sent a servant to find a wife for Isaac; arranged marriages have been a norm for a long time.

We have this modern idea that you just love someone, i.e. it is spontaneous and you either love them or you don't (i.e. romantic love), which is completely backwards and IMO is one of the big drivers of divorce (we just "fell out" of love). Love is something that takes work, you have to work at loving someone, especially your spouse b/c more than anyone else you will know more of your spouses faults (and they yours) than anyone else.  And to love someone despite all their flaws and imperfections and problems isn't something that just comes spontaneously or naturally. It takes an active choice.  Now certainly due to certain flaws and faults some people are easier to love than others, but regardless, spousal love is quite different than "romantic" love.

So maybe you don't see "romantic" love in the letters (i.e. the fawning over how they like their spouses hair, or their ascent, or the way they dress, or repeating how their souse is the man/woman of their dreams, etc.,etc., etc.) but I bet you do see a tremendous amount of spousal love-it's just a different manifestation of it.  It is extremely foreign to most people b/c they are looking for the romantic love vs. spousal love and unconditional love.

Hmm.  We may be saying the same thing in different ways.  I think that mixture of affinity, emotional attachment, mutual improvement, loyalty, sexual attraction, and (yes) monogamy that most of us call "romance"; has always been considered an ideal in marriage.  But what you seem to call "romance" (as differentiated from spousal love), I would probably be more apt to call "infatuation"--that stage of mutual obsession, fawning, baby talk, etc.; that often coincides with new love (but can often exist quite independently of actual love).  And I would agree with you that modern society's focus on this aspect in lieu of deeper spousal love, is probably a relatively new development; as well as with the novelty of the idea that love--in any form--is something that "just happens" rather than something that can be consciously cultivated or diminished.  Also relatively new, I think, is the broad acceptance of the idea that "love's" uncreated/uncreatable nature makes it worth pursuing at all costs--even at the expense of existing financial, family, religious, educational, professional and cultural commitments, and if necessary life itself.  (Yeah, Shakespeare wrote about that kind of thing; but not many people really acted that way.)

Edited October 10, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Hmm.  We may be saying the same thing in different ways.

I agree, I think we are.

Ah, the dawning of a new era, JAG and I agree on something :-). Queue the music!

[jerome1232]

37 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I agree, I think we are.

Ah, the dawning of a new era, JAG and I agree on something :-). Queue the music!

This?