I don’t want to share my husband in Heaven


Hello
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

And we are not talking about ancient times we are talking about now.

In the eternities, there is no time.  According to scripture, Abraham is already in heaven - and there is only one, not a separate one for OT folk, and another one for "modern" folk.  I recognize that this is a hard issue for many to work around (though why another person's plural marriage should be a problem I'm not sure), but the simple fact is, you can't think of heaven as not keeping up with the times, or as OT folk getting a different heaven (or even a different gospel) than we do.  It's all one with God.

17 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

In 1890 God supposedly told the LDS church to stop practicing polygamy.  I wasn't aware that stop meant 'oh but in heaven its still cool' Stop means Stop

Quote

Matthew 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Quote

Helaman 10:7 Behold, I give unto you power, that whatsoever ye shall seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and thus shall ye have power among this people.

Quote

D&C 132:46 And verily, verily, I say unto you, that whatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; ...

There is a priesthood power known as the sealing power.  It is by this power that marriages are sealed.  Once a marriage is sealed by this power, if the couple keep their covenants, it is sealed not only on Earth but also in heaven.  Whether plural marriage is practiced on Earth at any given time does not alter the efficacy of prior sealings, only the options available for current sealings.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I just watched this video last night, Polygamy as an Abrahamic Sacrifice, and thought of this thread.  Here's the description from Youtube:

The Book of Mormon condemns polygamy, and calls it abominable. Modern leaders of the Church have condemned the practice. In light of this, what are we to make of the ancient practice of polygamy and of the practice of polygamy by early Mormons? Does the Book of Mormon contradict the Doctrine & Covenants? What of polygamy in the next life? Is polygamy necessary to exaltation? If polygamy is legalized in the United States, will the Church reinstitute polygamy? In this episode of FAIR Examination, Dr. Valerie M. Hudson shares her thoughts on these and other questions.

While Dr. Hudson was a professor of political science at Brigham Young University, she was listed as one of the "100 Top Global Thinkers of 2009″ by Foreign Policy Magazine. In January 2012, she became a Professor and George H.W. Bush Chair in the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, teaching in the masters of international affairs program. More of her views on polygamy, women and the priesthood, and other women's issues are discussed in the book Women in Eternity, Women in Zion that she co-authored with Alma Don Sorenson.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall this (I think I've seen it before), there's a logical flaw presented here:

- The Abrahamic sacrifice was a great sacrifice.

- Polygamy, also being a great sacrifice, was accordingly compared to the Abrahamic sacrifice.

- Therefore, because the Abrahamic sacrifice did not require follow through, neither will polygamy.

The first two being true do not automatically equate to the third being true. That's a big ol' HUGE, and quite basic I might add, example of a logical fallacy.

Is it wise to give credence to a philosophy where the core view is based on a logical fallacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

People living in ancient times are no less human than we are.  But they did also have slavery and public death penalties, women could be traded by their fathers in marriage for livestock.  The world is a very different place now with very different moral values so I don't really see this as a valid argument.

. . . .

To be perfectly clear I don't have a problem with polygamy between 3 or more consenting adults.  I do however, have a problem with polygamy with penalties.  And thats what this is, a spiritual penalty.

With all due respect, Blossom, you aren't clear at all.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  You demand that the Mormon Church completely unambiguously shut the door on polygamy in heaven; but then you say you have no problem with voluntary practice of polygamy; but then again when I ask if you want existing marriages of Biblical patriarchs and matriarchs dissolved you drop hints that their marriages were qualitatively inferior because of the cultures in which they lived.  So, which is it, exactly?

Quote

The LDS church is saying you can't get to the highest level of heaven where God is unless you accept the fact that you may (as a woman) have to live polygamy in heaven.  Thats spiritual blackmail, women are going to agree to do something against their moral conscience to avoid a penalty.  That's not consent.

Woah, woah, woah, there!  No, the LDS Church is not saying you can't get to the highest level of heaven unless you, personally, agree to enter a polygamous relationship.  It has never said that.  To receive exaltation, or to be in the "highest level of the Celestial Kingdom" (I hate that terminology, by the way--heaven is not a high-rise hotel) all that is necessary is to enter into the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (i.e. temple marriage, not plural marriage) and to live according to the covenants pertaining to that order.  

There are basically three ways that a woman's (or a man's) resistance to polygamy can have an adverse effect on her eternal reward:  

1)  Mormonism has traditionally taught that an exalted being's glory is at least partly a product of that person's "increase"--in other words, the number of offspring and descendants that that being has.  That's why Mormonism has historically promoted large families; and one of the rationales for polygamy was that such families could produce larger amounts of progeny in a shorter period of time.  But again, polygamy was simply the means to an end--the end being posterity, not sexual partners.  A woman who declines to enter into polygamy isn't "penalized" any more than a woman or man who chooses to have zero or one or two children rather than six or eight or ten.  It's simply a matter of everyone living with the natural consequences of their own life choices.  

2)  To the extent that the idea of (for example) Sister Danzel and Sister Wendy both enjoying eternity while considering themselves married to Brother Russell, just sticks in a person's craw to the point where that person can't possibly forgive God for allowing Russell, Danzel, and Wendy to enter into such a relationship:  God's certainly not going to "penalize" that person; but the person's uncontrollable rage against God for failing to live up to 21st century Western social theory may well prove a self-imposed and insurmountable stumbling block that leads the person to reject the fulness of the reward God is offering them.

3)  A reasonably careful reader of D&C 132 will note some pretty harsh language directed towards Emma Smith and assume that such language naturally applies to all women who have qualms about entering into polygamous relationships.  In fact, the language was very likely intended specifically for Emma alone and was a response to some very particular threats that she had been making; which threats ranged from the possibility of a dower action against Church properties held in Joseph's name, to Emma's swearing to "get even" with Joseph by having a fling with some other man.  

Quote

In 1890 God supposedly told the LDS church to stop practicing polygamy.  I wasn't aware that stop meant 'oh but in heaven its still cool' Stop means Stop

And doesn't this give the fundamentalist groups more credibility than the mainstream LDS?  They didn't stop this 'heavenly practice' because of political penalties.  

. . . . 

I think the LDS church is wrong on this one, polygamy is either ok or its not ok. Its also going to cost a lot of memberships too.  This is not something the missionaries tell you in your lessons, this is not something you generally learn before baptism, this is something that comes and bites you in the butt when its too late.  Not me, no way

With all due respect, you are talking like someone who hasn't actually read the Church's own explanations of why the earthly practice of plural marriage ceased.  I would suggest you read the "Manifesto" ending polygamy--also known as Official Declaration 1--along with its  surrounding material.  It was not a matter of God saying that polygamy is morally wrong in all circumstances; it was a matter of God saying "as a practical expedient, you need to do this to save the Church's temples from government confiscation and its leaders from imprisonment." 

That doesn't erode the "credibility" of mainline Mormonism vis a vis fundamentalist offshoots, any more than mainstream Christianity's eschewing traditional kosher standards undermines its "credibility" vis a vis Orthodox Judaism.  The whole point of having ongoing revelation and a living, modern prophet; is so that we can have a reliable means of knowing what things we should be doing now that maybe weren't necessary a century or a decade ago--and knowing what things we used to do that are no longer optimal given evolving social conditions.  You wouldn't fault a mother who told her six-year-old to stay away from matches but then asked her teenager to light a campfire; and people who try to force God into this game of artificial absolutes and demand He give commandments independent of context will find themselves clashing with Mormon teaching over far more than simply polygamy.  

In closing, @Blossom76--what exactly are you thinking the missionaries failed to tell you?

1)  That Mormonism formerly practiced polygamy?  Because, with all due respect--did you really need missionaries to tell you that?  

2)  That Mormonism teaches you won't get the "highest level of heaven" if you don't become a polygamous wife?  Because, that just ain't true.

3)  That Mormonism teaches that *some* people--not necessarily you--will be voluntarily living in polygamous relationships in heaven?  Because, how is that any of your business?

3)  That Mormonism teaches that there is a possibility that if you predecease your husband, he may remarry and that both of his marriages may have standing in the hereafter?  Because, as I've said before--misgivings over that don't arise from a mistrust of Mormonism; they arise from a mistrust of one's own husband.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATTENTION LDS CHURCH STUDENTS AND INVESTIGATORS:

  • As far as has been revealed to us, plural marriage is not a requirement for exaltation in celestial glory.
  • Plural marriage did in fact exist among the people of God in past times, both anciently and in the much more recent past.
  • YOU MUST SUBMIT TO ALL OF GOD'S COMMANDMENTS iF YOU IF YOU WISH TO RECEIVE ALL GOD HAS TO OFFER. This is a general law, not specific to plural marriage.
  • TO REITERATE THE POINT ABOVE: If God commands you to do X, and you say, "No, God, I will not do X," then you will never receive the blessings or inherit the glory the Father has in store for you. Ever. Worlds without end.
  • The reason for this is simple: When God gives you a gift, he does not force you to accept it. That's true for the atonement. It's true for baptism. It's true for every gift that God gives to men and women.
  • Without exception, God's commandments to us are gifts to us.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:20-21
"There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated."

So if plural marriage is ever commanded of you, you can be perfectly sure it's a good thing done for your benefit, and that by obedience you will be much happier than you would otherwise have been by disobeying -- exactly the same as with any other commandment you might ever be given. No difference.

One final bullet point:

  • Worrying about plural marriage is useless. More than a few LDS women have materially worsened their lives in worrying about this principle, something that does not touch them personally and that they will never have to confront in this life. (See Carol Lynn Pearson for a living example.) Don't be one of them.
Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Not culture based at all.  It goes to the deepest most spiritual beliefs of my heart and soul.  I have prayed long and hard on this one.

Okay.  If you believe that God has answered your prayers, and has revealed to you that plural marriage is not of Him nor will it have place in the eternities of heaven, then you are obliged to go with that, leaving no real room for discussion.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Okay.  If you believe that God has answered your prayers, and has revealed to you that plural marriage is not of Him nor will it have place in the eternities of heaven, then you are obliged to go with that, leaving no real room for discussion.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you, I really appreciate that, and I agree, everyone should be in the church that God wants them to be in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

With all due respect, Blossom, you aren't clear at all.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  You demand that the Mormon Church completely unambiguously shut the door on polygamy in heaven; but then you say you have no problem with voluntary practice of polygamy; but then again when I ask if you want existing marriages of Biblical patriarchs and matriarchs dissolved you drop hints that their marriages were qualitatively inferior because of the cultures in which they lived.  So, which is it, exactly?

Woah, woah, woah, there!  No, the LDS Church is not saying you can't get to the highest level of heaven unless you, personally, agree to enter a polygamous relationship.  It has never said that.  To receive exaltation, or to be in the "highest level of the Celestial Kingdom" (I hate that terminology, by the way--heaven is not a high-rise hotel) all that is necessary is to enter into the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (i.e. temple marriage, not plural marriage) and to live according to the covenants pertaining to that order.  

There are basically three ways that a woman's (or a man's) resistance to polygamy can have an adverse effect on her eternal reward:  

1)  Mormonism has traditionally taught that an exalted being's glory is at least partly a product of that person's "increase"--in other words, the number of offspring and descendants that that being has.  That's why Mormonism has historically promoted large families; and one of the rationales for polygamy was that such families could produce larger amounts of progeny in a shorter period of time.  But again, polygamy was simply the means to an end--the end being posterity, not sexual partners.  A woman who declines to enter into polygamy isn't "penalized" any more than a woman or man who chooses to have zero or one or two children rather than six or eight or ten.  It's simply a matter of everyone living with the natural consequences of their own life choices.  

2)  To the extent that the idea of (for example) Sister Danzel and Sister Wendy both enjoying eternity while considering themselves married to Brother Russell, just sticks in a person's craw to the point where that person can't possibly forgive God for allowing Russell, Danzel, and Wendy to enter into such a relationship:  God's certainly not going to "penalize" that person; but the person's uncontrollable rage against God for failing to live up to 21st century Western social theory may well prove a self-imposed and insurmountable stumbling block that leads the person to reject the fulness of the reward God is offering them.

3)  A reasonably careful reader of D&C 132 will note some pretty harsh language directed towards Emma Smith and assume that such language naturally applies to all women who have qualms about entering into polygamous relationships.  In fact, the language was very likely intended specifically for Emma alone and was a response to some very particular threats that she had been making; which threats ranged from the possibility of a dower action against Church properties held in Joseph's name, to Emma's swearing to "get even" with Joseph by having a fling with some other man.  

With all due respect, you are talking like someone who hasn't actually read the Church's own explanations of why the earthly practice of plural marriage ceased.  I would suggest you read the "Manifesto" ending polygamy--also known as Official Declaration 1--along with its  surrounding material.  It was not a matter of God saying that polygamy is morally wrong in all circumstances; it was a matter of God saying "as a practical expedient, you need to do this to save the Church's temples from government confiscation and its leaders from imprisonment." 

That doesn't erode the "credibility" of mainline Mormonism vis a vis fundamentalist offshoots, any more than mainstream Christianity's eschewing traditional kosher standards undermines its "credibility" vis a vis Orthodox Judaism.  The whole point of having ongoing revelation and a living, modern prophet; is so that we can have a reliable means of knowing what things we should be doing now that maybe weren't necessary a century or a decade ago--and knowing what things we used to do that are no longer optimal given evolving social conditions.  You wouldn't fault a mother who told her six-year-old to stay away from matches but then asked her teenager to light a campfire; and people who try to force God into this game of artificial absolutes and demand He give commandments independent of context will find themselves clashing with Mormon teaching over far more than simply polygamy.  

In closing, @Blossom76--what exactly are you thinking the missionaries failed to tell you?

1)  That Mormonism formerly practiced polygamy?  Because, with all due respect--did you really need missionaries to tell you that?  

2)  That Mormonism teaches you won't get the "highest level of heaven" if you don't become a polygamous wife?  Because, that just ain't true.

3)  That Mormonism teaches that *some* people--not necessarily you--will be voluntarily living in polygamous relationships in heaven?  Because, how is that any of your business?

3)  That Mormonism teaches that there is a possibility that if you predecease your husband, he may remarry and that both of his marriages may have standing in the hereafter?  Because, as I've said before--misgivings over that don't arise from a mistrust of Mormonism; they arise from a mistrust of one's own husband.

I said I didn't have a problem with consenting adults practicing polygamy but I do have a problem with polygamy with penalties - all religious polygamy is tied to a penalty.

Missionary lessons do not include 'by the way there is a chance your husband will be sealed to two or more women and you might have to live polygamy for all eternity'

I never said you had to be a spiritual polygamist wife to get to the highest level of heaven.  But if you are to marry a man who is already sealed to another women, then, in that case that is the choice you are faced with, be sealed to this man and live polygamy for all eternity, or don't be sealed to him and accept a lower level of glory.

I don't want to be a part of any organisation that has polygamy in ANY part of their doctrine for ANYONE, not just me.

Bottom line is I don't think this is the true church, and its not just because of polygamy in heaven, that is just the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Woah, woah, woah, there!  No, the LDS Church is not saying you can't get to the highest level of heaven unless you, personally, agree to enter a polygamous relationship.  It has never said that.  To receive exaltation, or to be in the "highest level of the Celestial Kingdom" (I hate that terminology, by the way--heaven is not a high-rise hotel) all that is necessary is to enter into the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (i.e. temple marriage, not plural marriage) and to live according to the covenants pertaining to that order.  

But if your husband you are to be sealed to in the temple is already sealed to another woman (be she divorced or deceased) then you are being asked to agree to eternal polygamy.  So the happiest day of a woman life turns into a heartbreaking nightmare.  Or you can try and find someone else to marry and be sealed to and make sure they die first so they can't be sealed to anyone else (and potential husbands don't just grow on trees!).  Very stressful thoughts for a woman, after all eternity is an awfully long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

So the happiest day of a woman life turns into a heartbreaking nightmare. 

If it will be a nighmare then she can choose not to marry him, she knows whats involves already and if bothers her that much then she can choose not to marry him.

Edited by miav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, miav said:

If it is that it will be a nighmare then she can choose not to marry him, she knows involves already and if bothers her that much then she can choose not to marry him.

Exactly, that is what I mean by polygamy with penalties, a woman may choose she has no choice but to not marry the man she loves because she believes a doctrine taught by her church that she may have to live polygamy for all eternity if she does.  I don't think putting any woman in that position is ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women have to make choices about who they marry all the time. Some of those choices are unfair, that's called life. If a woman can't accept it then she has to move on to someone she can accept fully. It's her choice. Most woman I know who enter into marriages and sealing like these are fully aware if what it involves and accepts it, knowing that things will be figured out on the other side. They aren' being forced into it like you make it sound like they are.

 

And yes even if a man marries a woman after his wife's dies, I know and have heard alot of women that have told there husbands to find other wives after they die so the husband will have companionship. For those who belong to the church the women already understand that that mean their husband will be sealed to someone else. ( and vise versa if it was a man)

Edited by miav
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, miav said:

Women have to make choices about who they marry all the time. Some of those choices are unfair, that's called life. 

For the majority of Christian women (after all the LDS church makes up a very small percentage of christian churches), eternal polygamy is not a part of that choice, and I don't believe it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blossom76 said:

For the majority of Christian women (after all the LDS church makes up a very small percentage of christian churches), eternal polygamy is not a part of that choice, and I don't believe it should be.

Very true but there are many other choices they have to make when deciding who to marry, some choices are harder than other but they are choices nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

I said I didn't have a problem with consenting adults practicing polygamy but I do have a problem with polygamy with penalties - all religious polygamy is tied to a penalty.

. . . 

I don't want to be a part of any organisation that has polygamy in ANY part of their doctrine for ANYONE, not just me.

This seems . . . contradictory.

Quote

Bottom line is I don't think this is the true church, and its not just because of polygamy in heaven, that is just the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

Sounds like I pretty much called it in my last post when I suggested that "people who try to force God into this game of artificial absolutes and demand He give commandments independent of context will find themselves clashing with Mormon teaching over far more than simply polygamy."

Quote

Missionary lessons do not include 'by the way there is a chance your husband will be sealed to two or more women and you might have to live polygamy for all eternity'

That's because the Church ultimately isn't what would put you into that situation; your husband would.  Either you trust his discretion and his devotion to you--or you don't.  

Quote

I never said you had to be a spiritual polygamist wife to get to the highest level of heaven.  But if you are to marry a man who is already sealed to another women, then, in that case that is the choice you are faced with, be sealed to this man and live polygamy for all eternity, or don't be sealed to him and accept a lower level of glory.

 

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

But if your husband you are to be sealed to in the temple is already sealed to another woman (be she divorced or deceased) then you are being asked to agree to eternal polygamy.  So the happiest day of a woman life turns into a heartbreaking nightmare.  Or you can try and find someone else to marry and be sealed to and make sure they die first so they can't be sealed to anyone else (and potential husbands don't just grow on trees!).  Very stressful thoughts for a woman, after all eternity is an awfully long time.

The situation of a woman marrying a widower--as opposed to the situation of a predeceasing wife discussed earlier--seems like another scenario whose implications you haven't really considered.  Let's run out the possibilities through a series of hypothetical outcomes:

1)  Marriage does not continue into the hereafter.  (Prospective) Wife #2 and Husband may remarry, for this life only, with no eternal ramifications.  I presume this isn't your standpoint, because it would make our entire discussion academic.

2)  Marriage does continue into the hereafter.  (Prospective) Wife #2, unable to cope with the prospect of eternal polygamy, declines to go through with the marriage and resumes her search for a completely unattached potential mate.  Your statements quoted above suggest you believe this to be a cruel/unrealistic option.  (They also reek of the Hollywood lie that we have absolutely no control over who we love; but that's perhaps neither here nor there.)

3)  Marriage does continue into the hereafter.  (Prospective) Wife #2, unable to cope with the prospect of eternal polygamy, lobbies the Church to change its policies in such a way as to nullify Husband's sealing to the deceased Wife #1, thus enabling her to be sealed to Husband and keep him all to herself for all eternity and thus leaving deceased Wife #1 to fend for herself.

@Blossom76, your arguments tend towards Outcome #3.  In another recent thread I made a tongue-in-cheek crack about "celestial home wreckers"; but the two statements of yours that I cite above suggest that you actually think a woman should be entitled to do to another woman.  What makes this discussion even more bizarre is that in one breath you worry that a husband will betray his dead wife through remarriage; and then in your next breath you worry that he won't.  It's almost like you have no consistent, coherent vision of what spousal relations in the eternities are supposed to look like; and you're just poking holes in an attempt to justify your decision to not become a Mormon.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This seems . . . contradictory.

Sounds like I pretty much called it in my last post when I suggested that "people who try to force God into this game of artificial absolutes and demand He give commandments independent of context will find themselves clashing with Mormon teaching over far more than simply polygamy."

That's because the Church ultimately isn't what would put you into that situation; your husband would.  Either you trust his discretion and his devotion to you--or you don't.  

 

The situation of a woman marrying a widower--as opposed to the situation of a predeceasing wife discussed earlier--seems like another scenario whose implications you haven't really considered.  Let's run out the possibilities through a series of hypothetical outcomes:

1)  Marriage does not continue into the hereafter.  (Prospective) Wife #2 and Husband may remarry, for this life only, with no eternal ramifications.  I presume this isn't your standpoint, because it would make our entire discudssion academic.

2)  Marriage does continue into the hereafter.  (Prospective) Wife #2, unable to cope with the prospect of eternal polygamy, declines to go through with the marriage and resumes her search for a completely unattached potential mate.  Your statements quoted above suggest you believe this to be a cruel/unrealistic option.

3)  Marriage does continue into the hereafter.  (Prospective) Wife #2, unable to cope with the prospect of eternal polygamy, lobbies the Church to change its policies in such a way as to nullify Husband's sealing to Wife #1, thus enabling her to be sealed to Husband and keep him all to herself for all eternity and thus leaving Wife #1 to fend for herself. 

@Blossom76, your arguments tend towards Outcome #3.  In another recent thread I made a tongue-in-cheek crack about "celestial home wreckers"; but that honestly seems to be what you think a woman should be entitled to do to another woman.

My position is that the LDS teaching on celestial temple marriage (with a possibility of it being plural depending on the situation) is not of God. Simple, I don't believe it, that's all.  I don't believe in the structure of heaven taught by the LDS church.  

Why everyone thinks I need to have some sort of immediate 'belief' on what happens in heaven is kinda funny to me to be honest.  I don't believe in the LDS teachings on heaven.  I don't have to decide what heaven really is like with regards to marriage to make that decision.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

For the majority of Christian women (after all the LDS church makes up a very small percentage of christian churches), eternal polygamy is not a part of that choice, and I don't believe it should be.

The majority of Christian denominations, if not all other Christian denominations besides LDS,  do not believe in marriage at all in heaven,. Perhaps that is how you believe it should be.  To each their own.

At least according to that belief there is no risk of you sharing your husband with anyone else because he wont be shared in marriage with anyone at all, including you. Nice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wenglund said:

The majority of Christian denominations do not believe in marriage at all in heaven,. Perhaps that is how you believe it should be.  To each their own.

At least according to that belief there is no risk of you sharing your husband with anyone else because he wont be shared in marriage with anyone at all, including you. Nice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Like I have said numerous times, my decision to not join the LDS church is not based on the eternal marriage doctrine.  There are many doctrines of the LDS church I don't agree with.

I find your attitude and the insinuation that I would place my eternal soul in the hands of a religion based on selfish reasons to be extremely childish and very petty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

My position is that the LDS teaching on celestial temple marriage (with a possibility of it being plural depending on the situation) is not of God. Simple, I don't believe it, that's all.  I don't believe in the structure of heaven taught by the LDS church.  

Why everyone thinks I need to have some sort of immediate 'belief' on what happens in heaven is kinda funny to me to be honest.  I don't believe in the LDS teachings on heaven.  I don't have to decide what heaven really is like with regards to marriage to make that decision.  

The interest in your beliefs comes from the fact that you have utterly failed to articulate a soteriology that avoids the exact same marital conundrums for which you've attacked the Mormon view.  You're so busy smarmily telling us what you don't believe, that you haven't left yourself any logical space in which you can believe in much of anything at all.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The interest in your beliefs comes from the fact that you have utterly failed to articulate a soteriology that avoids the exact same marital conundrums for which you've attacked the Mormon view.  

I haven't attacked anything, I just don't believe it.  I wish you (not just you others too) would just accept that for what it is and stop trying to make me 'come up with some alternative' and just let it be, asking me the same thing over and over is not going to make me give a different answer.  

I don't need to decide what I think God wants to decide what I think he does not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I haven't attacked anything, I just don't believe it.  I wish you (not just you others too) would just accept that for what it is and stop trying to make me 'come up with some alternative' and just let it be, asking me the same thing over and over is not going to make me give a different answer.  

I don't need to decide what I think God wants to decide what I think he does not.  

Translation: "My position makes no logical sense, and I wish you'd quit pointing it out".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Like I have said numerous times, my decision to not join the LDS church is not based on the eternal marriage doctrine.  There are many doctrines of the LDS church I don't agree with.

I find your attitude and the insinuation that I would place my eternal soul in the hands of a religion based on selfish reasons to be extremely childish and very petty.

????

I am not sure why you said this to me since my comment had nothing to do with what you just wrote.  

Clearly, there is a serious communication issue here. Please forget that I asked you anything or said anything to you. Going forward, if I happen to quote you, it won't be because I expect a reasonable or productive response from you. Rather, it is to provide my perspective to others about what you said. Is that clear? I don't want to waste your or my time talking past each other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, wenglund said:

The majority of Christian denominations, if not all other Christian denominations besides LDS,  do not believe in marriage at all in heaven,. Perhaps that is how you believe it should be.  To each their own.

At least according to that belief there is no risk of you sharing your husband with anyone else because he wont be shared in marriage with anyone at all, including you. Nice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The bolded underlined comment is seriously suggesting that I am turning my back on a set of religious beliefs because I don't want to risk sharing my husband. NICE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wenglund said:

????

I am not sure why you said this to me since my comment had nothing to do with what you just wrote.  

Clearly, there is a serious communication issue here. Please forget that I asked you anything or said anything to you. Going forward, if I happen to quote you, it won't be because I expect a reasonable or productive response from you. Rather, it is to provide my perspective to others about what you said. Is that clear? I don't want to waste your or my time talking past each other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Going forward I wont speak to or respond to you at all. IS THAT CLEAR?????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share