Polygamy in the afterlife?

[Blackmarch]

So, you believe that whatever commandment we are given in this life, by definition, it is one that will have to continue onto the next?

What about animal sacrifice? What about circumcision? What about fast offerings? We will definitely be continuing that law in the next life? What about partaking of the sacrament, we will be definitely doing that every Sunday in the next life?

I disagree with your assumption that a law given in this life is one that definitely has to continue onto the next. There are laws and commandments designed to help us through this life and to bring us closer to God and His will that will be overcome and overpowered by simply being in His presence. There are examples of laws that are fulfilled in our gospel, meaning we don't practice them anymore and never will.

They could still be laws that for those people during that time in which they are given are the set of laws by which they will be judged worthy or not to enter into the Celestial Kingdom and only in that way continue onto the day of final judgement for them but not necessarily for us. ... otherwise we all better go find some lambs to sacrifice.

Yes we will have them in the next life, but will we have them as rituals or as written direction of action parsing out acertain way of performing it? I doubt it. The rituals are to teach us. Just like the law of moses was to teach us. If we only look at the outward and visible portions of the laws we miss the principles and doctrines contained therein, that we will be abiding.. And which have not gone away.

[Seminarysnoozer]

SS, I don't know that I specifically addressed whether or not all laws/commandments given in this life will need to continue into the next. However, in the case of polygamy I think this one is pretty clear. We continue to practice polygamy today in an eternal form. Elder Oaks is sealed to multiple spouses for time and FOR ALL ETERNITY. So are many, many other brethren of the church.

So do we believe what the sealing says and promises? Do we believe that he will be with both spouses for eternity, or don't we?

-RM

There are many conditions implicit to the sealing for time and ALL ETERNITY. If you think you know the Celestial Law that well, more power to you. Eligibility means everything. In this life we are judged by what is in our heart and our actions that reflect it. To be eligible for the blessings of the everlasting covenant one has to live worthy of such a thing to be eligible for it. This is what we are after. Anyone who has the love of Christ in their heart would want all of their brothers and sisters to have that same opportunity to be eligible for the fullness of those blessings. Therefore, covenants are made, sometimes on behalf of someone else who cannot do it for themselves. We do that in other circumstances without batting an eye. Why is it so far of a stretch to even consider (since the thought of polygamy in the next life is also just a consideration and not doctrine) that there are many souls who die before the age of 8 or who live this life with mental retardation to the point of not being accountable for their actions. Is their destiny to never marry or to only marry those that had similar circumstances? Could it be possible that a young man who died before the age of 8 be eligible to have those everlasting blessings shared with a woman who lived a full accountable life here in mortality or is that young man always destined to only share his eternities with someone who had similar circumstances. I present this not as doctrine but to allow you to expand your thought process as to the possibility that God has a greater purpose for such Earth-only practices.

Let me ask you this, could Elder Oak's "fullness of joy" be full with only one spouse? Or, in your view, he would fall short of eternal joy with only one spouse?

I can tell you one thing for sure, God does not vary. If polygamy is the practice of those in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom then it is the practice of all who are in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. Such an important thing could not vary. This is an all or nobody type issue.

Edited October 17, 2012 by Seminarysnoozer

[Seminarysnoozer]

Yes we will have them in the next life, but will we have them as rituals or as written direction of action parsing out acertain way of performing it? I doubt it. The rituals are to teach us. Just like the law of moses was to teach us. If we only look at the outward and visible portions of the laws we miss the principles and doctrines contained therein, that we will be abiding.. And which have not gone away.

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

[garryw]

If polygamy is the practice of those in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom then it is the practice of all who are in the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom.

I don't see the logic. That's like saying that if person X has 7 children then everybody must have 7 children.

Abr 3:16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them

If you recall limits in high school calculus, it's possible to have two infinities, one larger than the other infinity. Likewise, it's possible to have two men with infinite posterity, but one posterity being larger (growing faster) than the other.

Abraham was promised endless posterity. For whatever reason, posterity is a big deal in the celestial kingdom. It seems to be the "end game" for celestial beings. If that's the case, it explains the efforts made to establish polygamy in our dispensation. But it does not preclude monogamy. A monogamous person can indeed have infinite posterity.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't see the logic. That's like saying that if person X has 7 children then everybody must have 7 children.

Abr 3:16 If two things exist, and there be one above the other, there shall be greater things above them

If you recall limits in high school calculus, it's possible to have two infinities, one larger than the other infinity. Likewise, it's possible to have two men with infinite posterity, but one posterity being larger (growing faster) than the other.

Abraham was promised endless posterity. For whatever reason, posterity is a big deal in the celestial kingdom. It seems to be the "end game" for celestial beings. If that's the case, it explains the efforts made to establish polygamy in our dispensation. But it does not preclude monogamy. A monogamous person can indeed have infinite posterity.

You would like me to believe that something that is not necessary is what God practices?

If one receives the "fullness" of the Father and one is "one" with the Father and the Son, then the mathematical term I think you would want to use is = not infinity. Are there two different kinds of "all"? Or does "all" = "all" or is "all < "all"?

"Endless posterity" is possible when all is shared otherwise it become finite. Personal achievement and individual possession is limited. It is not bad, just limited.

What is the difference in the value of a relationship in terms of glory between; a brother and a brother and a sister and a sister and a brother and a sister etc. .....? You want to tell me that one brother or one sister is more valuable than another while in the Celestial Kingdom. I don't believe it. There is nothing in our gospel that says that that is true with the exception of marriage but even then it is not that far off.

Do you think God loves His wife more than you? How about if one makes it to the Celestial Kingdom, what possession does God's wife have that any other individual will not have? Does she possess more love? A deeper connection? If so, then something is hidden from the others, something is kept from the inheritance. The inheritance is not full. I don't know how that will work exactly but I believe in a full inheritance not a subset.

I believe in a plan of Salvation in which there is a potential for having no value difference between something that is individually possessed versus the value of the possession of another. Now, please do not misquote that statement or misinterpret it, I said; "the value". In other words, the accomplishments of person A is equally enjoyed by person B when person B has perfect love for person A, it is as if person B accomplished the thing by his or her self. It is "as-if" but not actual, so don't misinterpret what I am saying. I am not saying anything of the sort of sharing spouses etc, which some might interpret that way, I am simply saying the joy and glory of any act of those in the highest Celestial Kingdom is not kept under a bushel or behind locked door for the individual alone.

There is a place for that though if one prefers that kind of living, where one star varies from another star. So, if one learns to love that idea of selfish achievement and puts that into their heart, God will grant such a wish and provides such a place.

[garryw]

So the Book of Abraham is an exposition on the telestial or terrestial kingdom? I don't think so.

Does one exalted person have more glory than another? Yes

How do we know that? Jesus submitted himself to the Father in all things

[Seminarysnoozer]

So the Book of Abraham is an exposition on the telestial or terrestial kingdom? I don't think so.

Does one exalted person have more glory than another? Yes

How do we know that? Jesus submitted himself to the Father in all things

And by Jesus submitting himself to the Father, He is made one with Him and is given all that the Father has.

[garryw]

My interpretation is different than yours. For example, if my cousin has a baby, and is very happy about it I can be happy about it too. I can share in his joy. However, practicality indicates I can have more joy in my own seed than his.

So getting back to the topic of polygamy, we have section 132:19

"....if a man marry a wife by my word....... ...they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

Now, I can enjoy the seeds of others all day long, but without my own seeds I am damned. I have no posterity. The BoM indicates polygamy is to raise up seed. So to put it bluntly, in the "economy" of heaven more seeds = more glory. More wives = more seeds. Polygamy and monogamy are the same covenant, the same law. Both are celestial marriage, both exist in that kingdom.

[Just_A_Guy]

And by Jesus submitting himself to the Father, He is made one with Him and is given all that the Father has.

What are the contours of this "oneness", and this inheritance?

Can the Father still command Jesus to do something? Can Jesus now command the Father to do something? If Jesus got all that the Father has, does this mean that they now share wives?

This ideal of divine unity sounds marvelous, and I look forward to it. But I don't pretend to completely understand what it means, and I certainly wouldn't use it as a foundation for the proposition that polygamy will be a mandate for those who have inherited the "top level" of the Celestial Kingdom.

[Just_A_Guy]

Now, I can enjoy the seeds of others all day long, but without my own seeds I am damned. I have no posterity. The BoM indicates polygamy is to raise up seed. So to put it bluntly, in the "economy" of heaven more seeds = more glory.

Or, to put it another way:

We understand that we are to be made kings and priests unto God; now if I be made the king and lawgiver to my family, and if I have many sons, I shall become the father of many fathers, for they will have sons, and their sons will have sons, and so on, from generation to generation, and, in this way, I may become the father of many fathers, or the king of many kings. This will constitute every man a prince, king, lord, or whatever the Father sees fit to confer upon us.

In this way we can become king of kings, and lord of lords, or father of fathers, or prince of princes, and this is the only course, for another man is not going to raise up a kingdom for you. --Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 195

[classylady]

Now, I can enjoy the seeds of others all day long, but without my own seeds I am damned. I have no posterity. The BoM indicates polygamy is to raise up seed. So to put it bluntly, in the "economy" of heaven more seeds = more glory. More wives = more seeds. Polygamy and monogamy are the same covenant, the same law.

My question is where are the "more wives" going to come from? In order for all the men in the highest degree in the celestial kingdom to have more than one wife, there will need to be a lot more women than men. Statistically, it doesn't occur. More boys are born than girls. And would God send his sons to earth with the premise, just because you are a man, your chances of inheriting the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom is less likely than a woman?

Here's another thought. From what I understand, we don't know how "seed" will be formed in the next life. The same way as mortals? Will it also take 9 months for a spirit to be formed? If it doesn't take 9 months, then would more wives still be needed to produce more seed? Just something to think about.

Edited October 18, 2012 by classylady

[Seminarysnoozer]

My interpretation is different than yours. For example, if my cousin has a baby, and is very happy about it I can be happy about it too. I can share in his joy. However, practicality indicates I can have more joy in my own seed than his.

So getting back to the topic of polygamy, we have section 132:19

"....if a man marry a wife by my word....... ...they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever."

Now, I can enjoy the seeds of others all day long, but without my own seeds I am damned. I have no posterity. The BoM indicates polygamy is to raise up seed. So to put it bluntly, in the "economy" of heaven more seeds = more glory. More wives = more seeds. Polygamy and monogamy are the same covenant, the same law. Both are celestial marriage, both exist in that kingdom.

I think your interpretation of "seeds" could use a little searching and pondering (at least as it pertains to the LDS religious use of the term).

From LDS.org definition of seed of Abraham; "Seed of Abraham. The heirs of the promises and covenants made to Abraham, and obtained only by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Men and women become heirs by faithfulness to covenant obligations whether they are literally of Abraham’s lineage or by adoption. See Gal. 3:26–29; 4:1–7; D&C 84:34; 103:17; 132:30; Abr. 2:9–11. Literal seed may also lose their blessings by disobedience, as in Rom. 9:6–8. Cf. JST Matt. 3:36–37; JST Luke 3:13–14.

It is not obtained via offspring. The only seed anyone will have is based on their obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel whether they are literally of the lineage or adopted. And even those that are literal descendants only are called "seed" if they are obedient. So, really the only people that will be called "seed" has nothing at all to do with offspring.

Also, I am starting to take a little offense (and I am one usually hard to offend) that a woman in the next life couldn't pump out an offspring as quickly as a man. There is no indication that in the next life the limiting factor of offspring is some female gestational period. I believe in a Savior who actually overcomes the effects of the Fall. My belief is that He overcomes all the effects of the Fall, that is how powerful my Savior is. I don't about the Savior you are depending on that can't overcome that aspect of the Fall.

(Wow, I feel like I need to go watch a couple hours of Ellen DeGeneres while I thumb through this months O and then spend a couple hours on Loft.com just to chelate all the testosterone from this thread that I feel saturated with.)

[Seminarysnoozer]

What are the contours of this "oneness", and this inheritance?

Can the Father still command Jesus to do something? Can Jesus now command the Father to do something? If Jesus got all that the Father has, does this mean that they now share wives?

This ideal of divine unity sounds marvelous, and I look forward to it. But I don't pretend to completely understand what it means, and I certainly wouldn't use it as a foundation for the proposition that polygamy will be a mandate for those who have inherited the "top level" of the Celestial Kingdom.

I apologize if I came across as knowing the answer to that question; I don't know. In fact I have brought it up several times in various threads.

At the same time I believe in a God in which nothing can be hidden even the very thoughts and experience of another and who's son can suffer the sufferings of someone else. If those God-like skills are not included in the skill set of Celestial beings then I am not sure if they could really be called like-God.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Or, to put it another way:

Brigham Young, I don't think, is known for his eloquence but I do believe the words, "shall" and "may" in the quote you gave suggest that he is talking about spiritual offspring. And in that way I completely agree with the statement, as we do not know the exact method in which one could become a Father of a father in the next life. There is nothing there that supports or detracts from the possibility of polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom. I believe he is saying that eternal marriage is a requirement to eventually qualify for building a kingdom as that is the way it is built.

[Just_A_Guy]

Brigham Young, I don't think, is known for his eloquence but I do believe the words, "shall" and "may" in the quote you gave suggest that he is talking about spiritual offspring. And in that way I completely agree with the statement, as we do not know the exact method in which one could become a Father of a father in the next life. There is nothing there that supports or detracts from the possibility of polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom. I believe he is saying that eternal marriage is a requirement to eventually qualify for building a kingdom as that is the way it is built.

I agree with pretty much all of the above. I was merely buttressing garryw's point that I think much of our eternal glory, and the fulfillment of the promises made in the temple, come via offspring.

For clarification, I am not of the opinion that there will not be polygamy in the afterlife. I merely disagree with the notion that it is a requisite for the "highest degree" of exaltation. I do agree with garryw's position (as I understand it) that those who live polygamy in the eternities seem likely to have more offspring, faster, and thus will see glory added to glory and kingdom added to kingdom more quickly than those who remain monogamous. But as you say, there's much we simply don't know yet.

[tcage]

For clarification, I am not of the opinion that there will not be polygamy in the afterlife. I merely disagree with the notion that it is a requisite for the "highest degree" of exaltation. I do agree with garryw's position (as I understand it) that those who live polygamy in the eternities seem likely to have more offspring, faster, and thus will see glory added to glory and kingdom added to kingdom more quickly than those who remain monogamous. But as you say, there's much we simply don't know yet.

I agree. Though it does beg the question of why....

I'v wondered why the Church allows men to be sealed to multiple women.......if marriage is indeed "required" for exaltation, this seems to put single men at an even larger disadvantage if married men can start a harem.

The math just doesn't add up..

[RMGuy]

I agree. Though it does beg the question of why....

I'v wondered why the Church allows men to be sealed to multiple women.......if marriage is indeed "required" for exaltation, this seems to put single men at an even larger disadvantage if married men can start a harem.

The math just doesn't add up..

You're just trying to hard to make it make sense...lol!

-RM

[Seminarysnoozer]

I agree. Though it does beg the question of why....

I'v wondered why the Church allows men to be sealed to multiple women.......if marriage is indeed "required" for exaltation, this seems to put single men at an even larger disadvantage if married men can start a harem.

The math just doesn't add up..

Here is my non-doctrinal guess to that question; So, worthy women can enjoy the benefits that come from that covenant as soon as possible and not have to wait until they get matched up later to a companion.

Why do we do baptisms for the dead as soon as possible? Or why do we use a proxy sealing for the dead when we don't know if they one partner or the other will accept it? Why not wait until we are all together face to face and work it out then? Or wait until the millennium to work it out? I think your question falls under the same category as these questions.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree. Though it does beg the question of why....

I'v wondered why the Church allows men to be sealed to multiple women.......if marriage is indeed "required" for exaltation, this seems to put single men at an even larger disadvantage if married men can start a harem.

The math just doesn't add up..

Sure; but consider what kind of assumptions you base that statement on. It's quite possible that one or more of them are significantly flawed.

For example - your statement could be based on the implicit assumption that life begins at birth, and not before. But if it doesn't, and all those gender-selective abortions in China and India really are killing millions of little girls per annum - that, in and of itself, could be a demographic game changer in the eternities.

There's also a tendency to assume that the more-or-less equal male-to-female birthrates that have hitherto been observed, a) reflect the demographics of the spirit children God has created and b) will continue through the remainder of the earth's temporal history, which our doctrine teaches will be at least another thousand years. Consider that about 106 billion people have ever lived on this earth - about 7 billion of them right this moment - and that technological advances make the earth capable of sustaining ever-greater numbers of people. Even subtle changes in the millennial birthrate could completely eradicate any shortage of females that existed as of 2012.

By the way - and maybe I should lighten up - considering how much heartache and sacrifice our forebears (males as well as females) went through in their attempts to live the principle of plural marriage the best way they knew how; I do get just a smidge uncomfortable about using the word "harem" to describe LDS polygamy.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

By the way - and maybe I should lighten up - considering how much heartache and sacrifice our forebears (males as well as females) went through in their attempts to live the principle of plural marriage the best way they knew how; I do get just a smidge uncomfortable about using the word "harem" to describe LDS polygamy.

Thank you. I could not agree more. Talking about faithful Saints striving mightily to do as God commands them to do is treading on sacred ground, and flippantly referring to multiple wives as a "harem" is a profaning of what is (or at least what those who lived it considered to be) a sacred topic. You need not approve of polygamy to speak respectfully of those who practiced it.

[garryw]

So, really the only people that will be called "seed" has nothing at all to do with offspring.

And I think when Adam and Eve were commanded to go forth and multiply it had nothing to do with offspring. Clearly they were to search out righteous people and adopt them.

Sarcasm aside, in 132:19, the seed referred to is a subset of of the seed of Abraham. Yes adoption exists, but it will never replace the principle of continuation of seeds. I cant imagine an exalted husband and wife spending eternity wandering around looking for spirits to adopt. I imagine them increasing their posterity not robbing others of spirit children.

[Seminarysnoozer]

And I think when Adam and Eve were commanded to go forth and multiply it had nothing to do with offspring. Clearly they were to search out righteous people and adopt them.

Sarcasm aside, in 132:19, the seed referred to is a subset of of the seed of Abraham. Yes adoption exists, but it will never replace the principle of continuation of seeds. I cant imagine an exalted husband and wife spending eternity wandering around looking for spirits to adopt. I imagine them increasing their posterity not robbing others of spirit children.

Would you call Satan God's "seed"?

[garryw]

Would you call Satan God's "seed"?

I would call Lucifer, Son of the Morning, God's seed of course. The word Lucifer means Shining One. Who do we suppose named him that?

He rebelled and lost his inheritance, becoming Satan. Is he God's seed now? Sure, a bad seed.

Is he the seed of Abraham? Nope.

[circusboy01]

My mom told me that we LDS members believe that the men will have several woman he's married to in heaven one day. Is this true? It seems so wrong if it is, and I don't understand it! I have been inactive since 17, so I never really learned too much of my own religion. I do believe it's true, but I just don't understand why I will have to share my husband one day in heaven.....?

Also, what about multiple marriages and being sealed more than once to different spouses?

Please give me trusted references to read up on this, if you can.

I don't believe a man will have more than one wife in Heaven, unless he had more than one Temple Marriage while he was alive. Such as a wife dieing, and the man marrying another in the Temple. Also Brigham Young, and others married multiple wives, before Heavenly Father ended Polygamy If they were Temple Marriages then they will be their wives in Heaven. Brother Ray. Sorry I can't give you references. But I know there must be some. Maybe someone else could help with that.

[circusboy01]

LOL

Yeah, that makes since if it's only true because of multiple sealings. But, it's only for the males right? My mom was married to my dad for 26 years and they were not sealed because of him not being a member. Her husband now is a member and I like him... but I want my dad to be apart of our family in heaven. Ugh. So confusing this is.

If a wife is sealed to a husband. He dies and she is sealed to another. She will be with both of them in Heaven. If not then the second sealing had no meaning and was just a waste of time. Brother Ray.