unequal relationships

[Anddenex]

50 minutes ago, zil said:

Not really sure you can say that it's a moot point for any woman when her husband can be sealed to a second wife (if the woman dies first), and when none of us should be surprised if, after this life, people who didn't live plural marriage in mortality are commanded to in eternity (we have nothing to tell us one way or the other that only those who lived it in mortality will live it in eternity, so I'd say the possibility is wide open).  So, it's all well and good to say, "don't worry about it."  But you can't really say current mortals don't need to consider it / won't be / aren't impacted by it, since they may well be any next second.

I believe we are going to agree to disagree zil. My comment references a commandment to live polygamy, at this moment. There is no commandment given to man or woman to live in a polygamous relationship at this moment, none. A woman marrying a man who has been sealed to another woman (death or divorce) is not the same thing as a man or woman being commanded to live a polygamous life. A woman marrying a man who has been sealed who is simply honoring the commandment to marry, and it is their choice to marry a man who has been sealed to another woman -- in this life -- isn't what I was addressing. I am addressing "a commandment" at this moment to live in a polygamous relationship. In light of this, yes, the statement is moot, it becomes obsolete and not something to worry or fret about.

When we stand before God, after this life, and we receive any commandment we better obey (and our personal "I believe" will matter very little) the commandment. I don't believe I hinted or even stated that "truths" are something not to consider. We should consider truth -- all truth -- and we should be seeking to have the mind, will, voice of God.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Not really sure you can say that it's a moot point for any woman when her husband can be sealed to a second wife (if the woman dies first), and when none of us should be surprised if, after this life, people who didn't live plural marriage in mortality are commanded to in eternity (we have nothing to tell us one way or the other that only those who lived it in mortality will live it in eternity, so I'd say the possibility is wide open).  So, it's all well and good to say, "don't worry about it."  But you can't really say current mortals don't need to consider it / won't be / aren't impacted by it, since they may well be any next second.

This is probably going into deep doctrine territory...or things that are not considered doctrine, but are things people occasionally ponder about in the LDS church.

I know there are some that believe it, and it may very well be, but I don't know.

If I ponder on the polygamy thing, I wonder if that is really the case or not.

I know the Lord stated they are neither married or given in marriage in heaven.  This is one reason why we do sealings for the dead in this life. 

Let's say that those who do make it to eternity are commanded to live a plural marriage.  How is this done.  How do they know to seal so and so, to another so and so, when they were not married in this life.

Or is there something we do not understand that makes it so that such things may be done in heaven?

Or, perhaps, the verse would mean if we are not married here, we are not married there. 

That could make sense to a degree as well, and for most of us the entire polygamy thing is moot and people are worrying about things that they do not need to.

Of course, that wouldn't make a LOT of sense in recognition of what the prophets have stated about YOUNG WOMAN where if they did not have the opportunity to marry for eternity in this life, but held out for a righteous young man to take them to the temple but never was given the opportunity...they will have it in the here after.

(NOT young men, interestingly enough...there's is more of...if you don't in this life, you normally had more than enough chances, and if you didn't marry, that was your choice...etc...etc...etc)

That implies, that somehow, someway, those who did not have the opportunity to be sealed for all eternity in this life, will obtain that opportunity in the next, but how that is achieved or done...I have no idea.

That doesn't necessarily mean there will be polygamy by those who are in exaltation though, but it does imply there is some way of enabling those who need the sealing ordinances done after death who had none in this life performed between them...enabled.

More than likely we will find out more on how this is accomplished or done in the millennium.

Edited September 4, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

On 9/2/2017 at 6:47 PM, jewels8 said:

Why are so many men in and out of the Church spending so much focus on women in a way that is demeaning (pornography), hurts there feelings (pornography, wanting polygamy), hurting women & children (divorce-especially for reasons regarding affairs and pornography and other addictions and abuse) and why did/does God sometimes support polygamy?  Why aren't men more sensitive, are they just wanting something physical?  Does God just understand He wants something physical out of it too?  Why aren't women's feelings considered enough and the well being of children considered enough?  Why don't men and women just stand up and say that they are not going to have anything to do with pornography, affairs, etc.  Why don't they just stay away from filth?  Why do some  active, serving, LDS women prance around in immodest clothing?  Why don't there husbands do something about it as partriarchs , instead of condoning it?   Why do  some LDS women and men not see these things as problems that children should not be exposed to?  Why do some active LDS people engage in inappropriate movies, listening to inappropriate music, etc?  Why infect others with that influence?  Why not prepare for a better world?  Why was Emma told she would be destroyed if she didn't support Joseph's polygamist lifestyle?  Why is the Law of Sarah a joke, in the fact thatA a man doesn't have to follow it?  Why do LDS men joke about how they want more wives and physical things?  Why can't they treat things more sacred?  Why do they have to hurt women and children and focus on things that are so superficial and are not taught how to communicate, how to be patient , how to desire not to do evil and how to be committed?  I'm not saying all men are like this, and women, everyone has things to work on too, but women and children often are hurt the most when these things occur.  And sometimes women and kids are blamed for what the men do, when it is not there fault.  Everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions.  We all must answer to the same God eventually. People should not be seeking things that bring destruction to their soul and the souls of others.  It just saddens me that the world has so many who don't seem to want to follow the Lord and that even God may not have a problem with polygamy.  I think men should be more sensitive to what women and children feel.  there was an older General Authority who's wife died.  It happens.  But then he remarried again for all eternity to someone else.  Was it really fair to do that to his first wife?  I don't know all the reasons, and everyone may like a companion, but it seems insulting, in a  way.  He could have lived the few years left and not made his first wife have to deal with it.  Ofcourse that's not the intent, but really, there's no need for another wife.Especially for eternity.  Maybe if men had to be sealed to one women, they would not like it, so why should they seek to joke about having more than one or why does God condone it in eternity?  Seems to me, priesthood or not, men just want women and it makes no good moral sense to me.  If we are taught to be patient and all that, then why in the world woukld they need 20 wives in heaven to populate all their worlds faster?  I don't always feel this way, but seems that men and God's just  just ify what they want and the women have to go along with that or they are taught they are being "disobedient", won't be as blessed, possibly lose their standing   I thought men were suppossed to control themselves, but it seems they are promised and given much more than they deserve and the meek women are being taken away the little they have (in having to share one imperfect husband with a bunch of other women in the next life)  And can you really blame the woman for feeling coerced in to having to live this way, a way, lets face it, she wouldn't have chosen, if it wasn't the only means she had to have her precious children be hers forever?  And to have a husband?  And he doesn't have to share her with anyone.  Does this seem fair?  I know I don't understand everything.  But one thing I do understand, he will be sharing intimate relationships with others and she can only share a limited relationship with him.  

Pretty much a female version of Henry Higgins' rant:

 

[Vort]

4 hours ago, jewels8 said:

and if anyone feels similiarly, I hope that they know that they are not alone and that there feelings are valid.

They certainly are not alone. But what makes you think their feelings are valid? Just because they're the same as yours? What makes you think your feelings are valid?

[jewels8]

everyone's feelings are valid.  They are real to them.

[Vort]

Just now, jewels8 said:

everyone's feelings are valid.  They are real to them.

What does this even mean? If I feel you are a space alien, or I feel that God hates women, or I feel that chopping off people's limbs is a valid way to express love for them -- are my feelings valid?

[Bad Karma]

Ok, I navigated through the thread, especially the original post. I have to say other than an overly broad stroke from the brush of misandry, what in purple screaming meatballs did I just read? 

 

[jewels8]

How funny!  I mean everyone is entitled to feel what they want.  I mean we should be sensitive to others feelings.

 

[Bad Karma]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

What does this even mean? If I feel you are a space alien, or I feel that God hates women, or I feel that chopping off people's limbs is a valid way to express love for them -- are my feelings valid?

I thought the very same thing as you did, Vort. 

[Vort]

1 minute ago, jewels8 said:

How funny!  I mean everyone is entitled to feel what they want.  I mean we should be sensitive to others feelings.

If feelings are based on what you "want" to feel, who cares what you feel? It's meaningless.

And I do not believe that "Everyone's feelings are valid" means the same thing as "We should be sensitive to others' feelings." I think you were trying to say something else, but I can't figure out what.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, jewels8 said:

How funny!  I mean everyone is entitled to feel what they want.  I mean we should be sensitive to others feelings.

 

 

You are missing something important, sometimes called unbridled passions – plus, when feelings of two individuals are diametrically opposite (for example Christ and Satan) it is not possible to be sensitive to both.   I am going to make a wild guess that you are 20 something?

 

The Traveler

[SpiritDragon]

6 hours ago, jewels8 said:

  How can a woman spend an adequate amount of time with her spouse if he is being spread so thin? 

Consider that plural marriage when properly authorized has only been practiced by very few relatively speaking and perhaps it allowed for growth opportunities in those involved that we simply don't fully understand. As for in the eternities, keep in mind, that time will no longer be relevant and Celestial heirs will be perfected. In this sense, the common, petty weaknesses men and women have now will be done away with, husbands won't be constrained by time and we have the Lord's promise that those who choose to abide Celestial Glory will be happy.

 

Quote

... but really, maybe God just designed his plan so that He could have as much sex with as many women in a legitimate way without having to have   an emotionally close relationship with any of them.  I mean look at how many "LDS" men love pornography.  I'm not saying that s what Gods plan is all about, but it does seem a pretty elaborate way to get it. 

I hope I'm misunderstanding this, simply because it may be the most offensive thing I have ever read or heard anyone say about my Heavenly parents. God the Father is a just and righteous being who would not simply create a doctrine for his personal gratification... the juxtaposition of the hypothetical righteous practice of plurality of wives among our heavenly parents to the rank filth of pornography is so repugnant that I honestly can't believe it has been expressed. How can we believe in a just, fair, loving, perfect father and then suppose that simply by virtue of his position he would exploit women for the eternities - I mean if He could just make up the rules to suit impure lusts, why have any rules around morality at all then.

[Vort]

@jewels8, I have probably come across as callous, perhaps even mocking. If so, please excuse me. I admit to being more than a little frustrated by your tone and what I perceive as misandry. But if this accurately reflects your feelings, then it should be addressed with respect, even if your feelings are wrong.

I am a middle-aged man. I have spent my life watching many of the women closest to me in my life struggle with the idea of polygamy. Note that not one of these women has ever been commanded or even asked by legitimate authority to live polygamy of any sort in any form. Rather, they just obsess over it. It has taken over their lives, and in several cases has -- well, maybe not destroyed their life, but certainly damaged or destroyed their marriage and made them miserable, right up into their old age.

So with a lifetime of observed experiences, here is my considered advice to you:

Quit worrying about plural marriage.

There are many things we will have to deal with in the next life that we aren't prepared for yet. The possibility of plural marriage is only one of those things, and probably not among the top five in importance or difficulty. But we can be confident, assured that whatever God asks of us will be for our exaltation and eventual eternal enjoyment. We don't need to understand everything now.

Quit worrying about plural marriage. Let it go.

Seriously.

[jewels8]

Like I mentioned later, I don't really think that's what Heavenly Father's plan is all about.  And like I mentioned, it is not something I usually am bothered about and like I mentioned, I have felt peace about it.  Anyways, sorry about everything.  I guess that's what fast Sunday does to me (just kiddling)  Thanks for the advice.

[mordorbund]

12 hours ago, jewels8 said:

Like I mentioned later, I don't really think that's what Heavenly Father's plan is all about.  And like I mentioned, it is not something I usually am bothered about and like I mentioned, I have felt peace about it.  Anyways, sorry about everything.  I guess that's what fast Sunday does to me (just kiddling)  Thanks for the advice.

It's good to hear that you've found peace and that the OP doesn't actually reflect your beliefs or thoughts. For your consideration: you have posted the OP for all the world to see, not just those who have replied back but others who are not even registered on this site but come across such posts. For this silent audience, some of whom agree with some of your OP, will you share how you've come to feel peace? Will you share what you truly believe and how the OP was a devilish distortion?

[jewels8]

Just through prayer.  I don't see how others outside of here would see this post, I had to register to be on it.  But I think through prayer we can know things and through reading scriptures and asking our Father in Heaven in prayer.  I know the Gospel is true and like I said I don't understand everything.  I feel that anyone who has questions or concerns can find out through prayer what is right, even if things may bother them off and on, you can always go back to that.  Sometimes people just want understanding or to see a different view.  Know one but the Lord really knows what the next life will be like.  And I may be right about some things as well as someone else may be.I have already said that, you need to read everything.

 

[jewels8]

and don't judge what you don't know

[jewels8]

I am done with this topic, so please just drop it.  Only the Lord understands.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

17 hours ago, Vort said:

Pretty much a female version of Henry Higgins' rant:

 

Professor Ann Althouse has developed a tongue-in-cheek theorem:  feminism has evolved to the point that it is now acceptable to point out that men and women are not actually identical; so long as anyone pointing out any gender-distinctive trait fully explains why the "female" variant is in fact superior to the "male" way of doing things. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

On 9/2/2017 at 11:15 PM, jewels8 said:

He probably wanted in and she felt she had to give in

 

30 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

and don't judge what you don't know

The thing about deploying righteous indignation as a rhetorical device is, it loses much of its potency if one comes into the exercise with visibly unclean hands.  That's the thing that folks like Carol Lynn Pearson don't get--they stoke judgment against Church leaders and "TBM"s, whilst insisting that no one had better dare subject them to the same kind of scrutiny and criticism they heap upon others.

Whether or not Pearson remains an active Church member, she has left a lengthy trail of destruction that includes a major part in the apostasy of three family members of mine.  As acolytes of John Dehlin and Denver Snuffer have learned, "but not no one has excommunicated him yet" is a remarkably poor basis for handing the reins of one's testimony to a person who specializes in driving wedges between prophets and Church members.

[jewels8]

That is too bad, but I am not going to judge her or anyone else.  If you all want to just erase this topic and all the posts, that is fine with me.  We all have to stand on our own testimony. 

[my two cents]

1 hour ago, jewels8 said:

and don't judge what you don't know

how ironic

[Just_A_Guy]

19 minutes ago, jewels8 said:

That is too bad, but I am not going to judge her or anyone else. 

A worthy goal; and one with which I wish you (and myself) much success.

[jewels8]

Thank you,  You too.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Professor Ann Althouse has developed a tongue-in-cheek theorem:  feminism has evolved to the point that it is now acceptable to point out that men and women are not actually identical; so long as anyone pointing out any gender-distinctive trait fully explains why the "female" variant is in fact superior to the "male" way of doing things.

Doesn't sound tongue-in-cheek to me. Sounds very literal.