Number 1 reason why plural marriage probably won't be a part of the Millennium and Celestial Kingdom

[Blackmarch]

On April 14, 2017 at 6:34 PM, Zarahemla said:

That main reason is agency. Those who we are sealed to on earth and spend 70 years with, during the Millennium we can easily have the choice not to remain with our spouse and to look for an eligible resurrected perfect bodied person. Brigham Young even said all his unhappy wives have the agency to leave him and agency is so important to our souls it was the topic of the war in heaven. So throw in all these wIves who died and husbands remarried might choose someone else in the Millennium and the'll be plenty of eligible singles to choose from. If the women in polygamy want to stay they have that agency too but God is not forcing anyone together in the next life, plural marriage included.

Bingo. However on the flipside as we progress and learn and become more charitable, polygamy also becomes more likely as well.

[Guest]

I assume there is a higher form of marriage than what we have on earth in the Celestial Kingdom.

[Blackmarch]

13 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

I assume there is a higher form of marriage than what we have on earth in the Celestial Kingdom.

I figure most things here are prepatory for greater things, altho the godly things that we take on here will be a foundation for it. just IMO tho.

[wenglund]

On 4/15/2017 at 11:45 AM, Zarahemla said:

You disobeyed Pam and kept the personal attacks about my therapist and mental health coming when I said to stop and who knows maybe plural marriage is a good thing. Ever think of that? Now go away before I really start hating you. Stay out of my personal business and be more professional.

Does one need to be a professional to detect a potential counterproductive obsession? I don't think so. One simply needs some personal experience with such, and a loving desire to help others avoid the same.

You have the agency to thoughtfully consider the kindly advice or turn it into unintended confrontation. The former may do you some good, while the later is guaranteed to lessen all parties.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 17, 2017 by wenglund

[eddified]

On 4/15/2017 at 10:49 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Once again, agency is NOT freedom. It is freedom related to accountability.

Can you fly like Superman? No? So that must mean you don't have agency?

That's nonsense, of course, because being limited in the choices we can make is only a part of agency, and choices that are irrelevant to salvation are irrelevant to the gospel principle of agency. Agency relates only to the choices we make concerning good and evil as far as we understand them. And we stand accountable.

Per the "progeny" thing...what of couples who cannot have children in this life. Do they have no agency? Less agency? Less chance for salvation? Less ability to choose good over evil?

That being said, I agree on the wondering about how "agency" works in the next life. Agency, as a gospel principle, seems directly related to our choice for salvation or damnation. Once we have been saved or damned then the choice is made and such agency seems at an end.

I found this quote:

Quote

How far does our agency extend? Brigham Young answered this question by saying: “There are limits to agency, and to all things and to all beings, and our agency must not infringe upon that law. A man must choose life or death. … the agency which is given to him is so bound up that he cannot exercise it in opposition to the law, without laying himself liable to be corrected and punished by the Almighty.

“It behooves us to be careful, and not forfeit that agency that is given to us. The difference between the righteous and the sinner, eternal life or death, happiness or misery, is this, to those who are exalted there are no bounds or limits to their privileges, their blessings have a continuation … they increase through all eternity; whereas, those who reject the offer, who despise the proffered mercies of the Lord, and prepare themselves to be banished from his presence, and to become companions of the devils, have their agency abridged immediately, and bounds and limits are put to their operations.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, pp. 63–64.)

Source: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/using-our-free-agency?lang=eng

 

It seemed you took issue with how I discussed agency as being "limited". This quote (particularly the last sentence) is what I was getting at when I said "it sounds like there are some limits."

[The Folk Prophet]

53 minutes ago, eddified said:

I found this quote:

Source: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1975/04/using-our-free-agency?lang=eng

 

It seemed you took issue with how I discussed agency as being "limited". This quote (particularly the last sentence) is what I was getting at when I said "it sounds like there are some limits."

I don't know what Brigham Young meant by this, or how he used or understood the word "agency". What I do know is that the way agency, as a term, is used in the current day, it is not equal to "freedom" in meaning.

[eddified]

43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't know what Brigham Young meant by this, or how he used or understood the word "agency". What I do know is that the way agency, as a term, is used in the current day, it is not equal to "freedom" in meaning.

I do not believe it to be equal "freedom", either. I would like to read the material from which you are getting your definition of "agency". Would you mind please posting a reference?

[The Folk Prophet]

39 minutes ago, eddified said:

I do not believe it to be equal "freedom", either. I would like to read the material from which you are getting your definition of "agency". Would you mind please posting a reference?

I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for. My understanding of agency doesn't come from a single source. It comes from studying the matter from many sources. For example, read through these:

https://www.lds.org/topics/agency/what-the-church-teaches?lang=eng&old=true

And then read through these:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&query=agency&x=0&y=0

and here: 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/agency?lang=eng

and in particular: 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2

particularly vs. 26 and 27, which might be a good "definition", as it were: "[Men are] free....to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. ... And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil;"

That's a pretty good summary I think. Agency is the freedom to choose salvation or damnation.

[Rob Osborn]

If I may interject. Agency is the power of action or operation. Its freedom to act and not be acted upon as 2 Nephi ch. 2 states. The loss or destruction of ones agency is being held captive- its being "acted upon". When Christ xame and atoned for the sins of the world it made it possible for agency to he upheld and give men the opportunity to act for themselves to be released from captivity, or being acted upon by eternal law. This is what the scriptures in Moses is referring to when it says Lucifer sought to destroy the agency of man- Lucifer sought to bring men into captivity to be acted upon.

[wenglund]

22 hours ago, eddified said:

IIt seemed you took issue with how I discussed agency as being "limited". This quote (particularly the last sentence) is what I was getting at when I said "it sounds like there are some limits."

I believe there are other limits to agency--such as circumstances and otherwise. As a relatively financially impoverished person, I don't have the agency to live the lifestyle of Mitt Romney. As someone who isn't particularly handsome, I don't have the agency to "get" any girl I want. Having a somewhat less than nimble mind, I don't have the agency to immediately grasp things like quantum mechanics and string theory. Even though I once took piano lessons, I don't have the agency today to expertly perform technically difficult piano pieces, let alone at Carnegie Hall. As someone who is governed by the laws of physics, I don't have the agency to be in two separate locations at the same time, nor do I have the agency to choose not to fall after jumping from a building. Someone born in Kenya doesn't have the agency to be POTUS. 

"Free" agency isn't always free. Sometimes it comes at a great cost as well as attendant responsibility, but also sometimes things are just not plausible. To me, free agency only truly exists at the nexus of choices that are plausibly available to us (not all choices are), because once certain choices are made, it closes off other choices and we become bound by the consequences, whether for good or ill.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, wenglund said:

As a relatively financially impoverished person, I don't have the agency to live the lifestyle of Mitt Romney. As someone who isn't particularly handsome, I don't have the agency to "get" any girl I want. Having a somewhat less than nimble mind, I don't have the agency to immediately grasp things like quantum mechanics and string theory. Even though I once took piano lessons, I don't have the agency today to expertly perform technically difficult piano pieces, let alone at Carnegie Hall. As someone who is governed by the laws of physics, I don't have the agency to be in two separate locations at the same time, nor do I have the agency to choose not to fall after jumping from a building. Someone born in Kenya doesn't have the agency to be POTUS. 

But what does any of that have to do with your salvation though?

Yes, freedom relates. And without freedom there can be no agency in that thing. You aren't responsible for how you spend a million dollars if you don't have a million dollars. So, yeah, with great freedom comes great responsibility. But that isn't what the gospel principle of agency is really about. It's about being responsible for what you have been given.

I've said this before (and it brought a row then and I suppose it will now as well), but agency is equivalent to stewardship.

We are given our lives. We are responsible for our lives. No one else is responsible for what we are given and we are not responsible for what others are given. We are agents unto ourselves. The limitations of our freedom are not our stewardship...they are not our assignment...we are not agents for those things.

Agency does not apply where there is no choice. But we still have agency given to us. Agency, as a principle, is stewardship. For what we have been given, we are accountable. If something is taken away, it does take away that particular stewardship. And so one could reason that some agency is removed as well.

Is that a bad thing? Should we be responsible for everything? Or is it appropriate that our stewardship is right for our test and our growth and our abilities?

So if we really get into it, I agree that agency can be defined and understood in a way that one's agency can be limited. But I don't buy into that being de facto a bad thing. Less agency means less accountability. Sometimes that's bad. Sometimes it can be good.

As the gospel and the scriptures tend to speak of agency, however, it cannot be limited. It is the broad idea that we are accountable for what we have been given. You cannot remove or limit an idea like that. If you take away what has been given then you are still accountable for what you do have...and hence you have full agency still -- being that you are still accountable for what you have been given and always will be.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Agency is the power of action or operation. 

AND the responsibility/accountability for that action.

[Vort]

27 minutes ago, wenglund said:

As someone who isn't particularly handsome

I don't know, Wade. You certainly rock that beard.

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

AND the responsibility/accountability for that action.

Only responsible persons can have true agency. Accountability automatically is attached to an agents actions within their responsibility. Agency though is just the power of action. We are not free from the consequences of our agency though which may hinder, limit, or destroy our agency.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Only responsible persons can have true agency. Accountability automatically is attached to an agents actions within their responsibility. Agency though is just the power of action. We are not free from the consequences of our agency though which may hinder, limit, or destroy our agency.

Too many people think, that agency is, indeed, unrelated to consequence. Hence you get bologna ideas like "I can't make my child do such-n-such. That's taking away his/her agency." When, in fact, being punished (which is what they're really talking about) for doing something disallowed is a prime example of agency in the gospel. It's exactly how God works. He gives us commandments (like a parent saying, "You may not go out tonight") and yet we can disobey (freedom (which we have unless our parent's have literally tied us to a chair)), but when we do disobey we pay the consequence for disobedience (like getting grounded, losing allowance, a whipping, etc.).

[wenglund]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But what does any of that have to do with your salvation though?

Yes, freedom relates. And without freedom there can be no agency in that thing. You aren't responsible for how you spend a million dollars if you don't have a million dollars. So, yeah, with great freedom comes great responsibility. But that isn't what the gospel principle of agency is really about. It's about being responsible for what you have been given.

I've said this before (and it brought a row then and I suppose it will now as well), but agency is equivalent to stewardship.

We are given our lives. We are responsible for our lives. No one else is responsible for what we are given and we are not responsible for what others are given. We are agents unto ourselves. The limitations of our freedom are not our stewardship...they are not our assignment...we are not agents for those things.

Agency does not apply where there is no choice. But we still have agency given to us. Agency, as a principle, is stewardship. For what we have been given, we are accountable. If something is taken away, it does take away that particular stewardship. And so one could reason that some agency is removed as well.

Is that a bad thing? Should we be responsible for everything? Or is it appropriate that our stewardship is right for our test and our growth and our abilities?

So if we really get into it, I agree that agency can be defined and understood in a way that one's agency can be limited. But I don't buy into that being de facto a bad thing. Less agency means less accountability. Sometimes that's bad. Sometimes it can be good.

As the gospel and the scriptures tend to speak of agency, however, it cannot be limited. It is the broad idea that we are accountable for what we have been given. You cannot remove or limit an idea like that. If you take away what has been given then you are still accountable for what you do have...and hence you have full agency still -- being that you are still accountable for what you have been given and always will be.

I have no problem with you comparing agency to stewardship. I actually like the comparison.

However, as to what my comments have to do with salvation, there are at least two ways in which it relates. First, as Paul explains in Rom 6:16, making certain choices, such as whom you will serve, close off other choices--i.e. it limits agency and freedom. No man has the agency to serve two masters (Mt 6:24) , 

Second, the reason that I mentioned wealth and poverty is because wealth often provides a greater capacity to sin, or in other words greater agency to sin--which is why, in part, it is more difficult for a rich man to pass through the eye of the needle than it is to enter the kingdom of God (Mt 19:24)  

So, I am not really disagreeing with you. I am simply pointing out how agency isn't in every respect free or unlimited.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't know, Wade. You certainly rock that beard.

You are too kind. But, when I open my mouth and show my missing teeth (for some reason many of my upper teeth have disintegrated at the gum line this last year) and take off my sun glasses to reveal my red eyes (rosacea) , it tends to scare the kids. It is like the Pirates of the Caribbean come to life:

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

However, as to what my comments have to do with salvation, there are at least two ways in which it relates. First, as Paul explains in Rom 6:16, making certain choices, such as whom you will serve, close off other choices--i.e. it limits agency and freedom.

Explain this. I know that it's been used as an idea before. But how does that work? It implies that I can't repent if I sin. That isn't true. No matter how low one goes (with the exception of the the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost) one can always repent. Is that not the core of agency? The ability to repent?

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

No man has the agency to serve two masters 

Nice. Not true outside the gospel, of course. But still a good one.

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Second, the reason that I mentioned wealth and poverty is because wealth often provides a greater capacity to sin, or in other words greater agency to sin--which is why, in part, it is more difficult for a rich man to pass through the eye of the needle than it is to enter the kingdom of God (Mt 19:24)  

I'm not sure that's valid. The reason why rich men have a harder go of it is because of the pride that comes with wealth. It's just as easy for poor man to murder, rob, lie, etc. I don't think wealth gives one more ability to sin. Just the potential of more pride and motivation to sin.

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

So, I am not really disagreeing with you. I am simply pointing out how agency isn't in every respect free or unlimited.

I agree. And I never meant to say, if any one took it that way, that agency is unlimited. It's more the idea that the principle of agency cannot be removed from us. We cannot be made accountable for that which we are not given, or for that which is truly forced upon us.

Edited April 18, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[wenglund]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Explain this. I know that it's been used as an idea before. But how does that work? It implies that I can't repent if I sin. That isn't true. No matter how low one goes (with the exception of the the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost) one can always repent. Is that not the core of agency? The ability to repent?

It is a matter of destinations rather than ability to change direction. If I board God's train towards the Celestial kingdom, I can't at the same time board Satan's train headed to Hell, though I can de-board either train at will and get on the other. In other words, I can't choose where the respective trains will take me, nor can I choose to be on both trains at the same time, though I can choose which train to be on (either through sin or through repentance and righteousness).

Quote

'm not sure that's valid. The reason why rich men have a harder go of it is because of the pride that comes with wealth. It's just as easy for poor man to murder, rob, lie, etc. I don't think wealth gives one more ability to sin. Just the potential of more pride and motivation to sin.

You won't find many poppers visiting Hefner's playboy mansion. Brad Pitt has a far greater opportunity to commit adultery and promiscuity than I do. I am not in the upper escutcheons of a wealthy corporation, and so my chance for embezzling are somewhat restricted.  I could go on and on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JohnsonJones]

This depends on how you view those who are not married in this life.  It also depends on how seriously you take the idea that marriage is something that occurs in this life, not the next.  Someone did a sort of math a LOOONG time ago...but I cant' recall all their sources right off the top of my head.  It went something like this though...

If those who die without marriage that are men are NOT married in the next life, it changes the numbers

If all woman, who choose to do so, will have the opportunity to be married in the next life, can, it changes the numbers. (there have been statements that imply this idea.  I can't go into it in depth in public, but the idea is because of the nature of certain covenants, where woman are accountable in a different way then men, in essence most of them will actually end up being able to go to the Celestial Kingdom, whilst men may be delegated to the Telestial or Terestrial dependant on their choices in this life...which puts a WHOLE new perspective on why those in the Telestial and Terestrial would not be able to have eternal offspring even if they wanted to or have the organs to do so).

This mean, right off the bat, we have at least 40% out of the picture due to early death.  We then have 30% men and 30% woman (approx. 50/50).  If we look at it that 1/3 of men will be righteous enough or make it to the Celestial Kingdom, that still leaves 20% that will not attain exaltation.  That means you have 10% (not sure if that was the actual percentage, but it was pretty low overall) of the population of men who have the exaltation there, another 20% in the Celestial Kingdom itself, but unmarried.  That leaves 50% of the population, or those that are woman, who may want to be married with a celestial marriage, but who cannot be married in a 50/50 ratio.  How then do you account for that discrepancy in this scenario?

A DIFFERENT situation, once again, presented to me.

Imagine that every LDS man was excessively righteous.  Imagine again, that for the most part, in the pre-existence we had a choice on whether we would have the opportunity to be a member of the LDS church and attain a celestial marriage.  We know this is just imagining, because currently, it's no where close to that, but just for numbers sake, imagine these things.

Now, look at the demographics of righteous woman to righteous men in the LDS church.  The numbers can be somewhat staggering, and they change as individuals get older.  The older the group, the more heavily leaning towards woman that percentage becomes.  There is a HUGE amount of righteous woman in regards to righteous men in the church.

Now, we can add one more imaginary thought, what if, due to the way the Lord has salvation differently for woman than men (as expounded in some holy places), that in total, a majority of woman on this planet are able to get to the Celestial Kingdom.

If we just go with the members in the church, there will be more woman than men in the Celestial Kingdom.  How then, is exaltation going to be achieved if every one of those woman desire to have exaltation?

If we go with the world population, right now we have ~15 million members in the LDS church.  We'll say, for ease of numbers, 7 million of those are men.  There are around 7 Billion people in this world, that is 3.5 Billion woman.  That is 500 woman for every man.  If even 1/10 of those woman attain the celestial kingdom...Those numbers can be staggering.

This of course, is done with the idea that OUR CHOICES in the pre-existence have a DIRECT relation to our opportunities in this life.

 

There are MANY variations on these ideas.  That said, I, myself, am not in favor of Polygamy (as I have stated multiple times I believe).  This is NOT what I necessarily think, but more postulation on what happens IF polygamy really IS something that is asked in the hereafter (and I am not necessarily of the opinion that it is.  My own opinion is that the original idea that polygamy may not be that major of a thing in the hereafter, could be correct, in that in heaven they are not given in marriage.  What you are stuck with in this life is what you get, and as a majority [by a large margin] are NOT in plural marriages, it is NOT an issue most will deal with).  That said, in regards to the actual topic...

These situations and others could create a quandary.  Looking at numbers, how does one resolve these issues?  Even if we say people have a choice to move around in the millennium (and that's not exactly an accepted conundrum that many believe), how are the numbers going to match up in any of these situations?

Why would ANY woman (or man for that matter, except for worldy reasons, is there really any man that truly would want to have more than one wife?  How are you going to be best friends with multiple wives?  That defies description, as you can only have ONE BEST, not multiples) want to share their husband or have a husband with more than one wife?

This is where the gospel doctrine of the Lord comes into play.

1. Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, might, and strength.  You are to love the Lord MORE than your spouse, and that means your husband and wife.

2.  Love your neighbor as yourself.

In this observation, with rule number 1, your love for all will increase.  Your selfishness will decrease.  Your desire to have your fellowmen (and woman) be able to have all the blessings that they are able to will abound.  Instead of jealousy and selfishness, you'll only have love for others.  In this way, the first commandment is invariably bound and united with the second commandment, because as you work on the first, you become more like our Lord and your love for all increases. 

In this way, we will be willing to love those that love us, and share our lives with others and they with us.  It is because such worldly desires are done away with that we will see Exaltation and plural marriage (if it is there) as something to be celebrated rather than how the WORLD sees it.

Once again, that said, I'm going to reiterate...

This is NOT what I necessarily think, but more postulation on what happens IF polygamy really IS something that is asked in the hereafter (and I am not necessarily of the opinion that it is.  My own opinion is that the original idea that polygamy may not be that major of a thing in the hereafter, could be correct, in that in heaven they are not given in marriage.  What you are stuck with in this life is what you get, and as a majority [by a large margin] are NOT in plural marriages, it is NOT an issue most will deal with).