The Idea That We'Ll Be "Living It Up There". Where Does It Come From?

[Olavarria]

So, anyone that's been LDS for at least a year will eventually hear from someone, when the topic of polygamy comes up, "we'll be living it up there". In other words, the assumption is that all Gods are polygamists.

My question is: where did this idea come from?

Instructions to LDS seminary teachers:

Note: Avoid sensationalism and speculation when talking about plural marriage. Sometimes teachers speculate that plural marriage will be a requirement for all who enter the celestial kingdom. We have no knowledge that plural marriage will be a requirement for exaltation.

— Doctrine and Covenants and Church History: Seminary Teacher Resource Manual (Intellectual Reserve, 2001, [updated 2005]).

Edited July 31, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[altersteve]

So, anyone that's been LDS for at least a year will eventually hear from someone, when the topic of polygamy comes up, "we'll be living it up there". In other words, the assumption is that all Gods are polygamists.

My question is: where did this idea come from?

Probably from the teachings of Brigham Young, where he said that only those who accept polygamy as a commandment of God can be saved. He never said, though, that men have to enter into polygamy in practice, only in their faith.

[ken27]

Probably from the teachings of Brigham Young, where he said that only those who accept polygamy as a commandment of God can be saved. He never said, though, that men have to enter into polygamy in practice, only in their faith.

I think it is also linked to the belief that there will be 6 or 7 times as many women as men up there.

[Storm Rider]

I grew up in a large family and have been married for decades. Family relationships take work and are demanding. The only people that could possibly think that polygamy is "living it up" are those who have never been married and were an only child.

[Glenn101]

I grew up in a large family and have been married for decades. Family relationships take work and are demanding. The only people that could possibly think that polygamy is "living it up" are those who have never been married and were an only child.

Was this intentional, i.e. taking the "there" to make it seem as if Pedro was saying that polygamy is practically a state of nirvana, out of "living it up there" to mean living it in the Celestial Kingdom.

Glenn

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

So, anyone that's been LDS for at least a year will eventually hear from someone, when the topic of polygamy comes up, "we'll be living it up there". In other words, the assumption is that all Gods are polygamists.

My question is: where did this idea come from?

Could be from the fact that when my mother (who was sealed to my father in the temple), died, my father re-married, and was sealed to another.

[Arkholt]

If it is the case, there better be a really good reason for it. The justification for it in the Book of Mormon is that God wants to "raise up seed." The only explanation I can think of for living it in the Celestial Kingdom is to raise up spirit children... but seeing as how we have an eternity to do that, I don't see why one would need to accomplish the task in a shorter period of time.

[altersteve]

If it is the case, there better be a really good reason for it. The justification for it in the Book of Mormon is that God wants to "raise up seed." The only explanation I can think of for living it in the Celestial Kingdom is to raise up spirit children... but seeing as how we have an eternity to do that, I don't see why one would need to accomplish the task in a shorter period of time.

To "raise up seed" is not to have children, necessarily, it is to become sealed to more people and seal the human family all the way back to Adam. That's what "seed" means. It's like "Lehi's seed" does not necessarily refer to his direct descendants, but rather to people who are related to him through adoption or marriage, even distantly, and that all people who are of his "seed" share him as a common ancestor somewhere down the line. Whether or not the Lord will require us to enter into plural marriage in the celestial kingdom, though, is probably unlikely, to me, unless we were already sealed to more than one person when we were on earth. The only requirement for the celestial kingdom and exaltation regarding marriage is that we have to be married in the temple. That's all God has told us for now.

[Xander]

Shortly after the Manifesto of 1890, George Q. Cannon addressed the concerns of the membership who thought they would lose their exaltation since they would no longer be able to practice polygamy. Cannon's response wasn't anything remotely similar to what modern apologists say. Meaning, he didn't respond by saying "what a silly concern, since that was never required to begin with." Instead, he said:

"I know there are a great many who feel that, this being a principle of exaltation, they may be in danger of losing their exaltation, because of their inability to obey this. I want to say to all such that the Lord judges our hearts; He looks at our motives. There were a great many men in past times who never had the privilege of obeying this doctrine, because the law was not given to them. Do you think that they are excluded from exaltation? Do you think that they will be deprived of celestial glory? I do not."

Brigham Young once said,

"If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives."

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

[Xander]

To "raise up seed" is not to have children, necessarily, it is to become sealed to more people and seal the human family all the way back to Adam

Did you write this with a straight face?

Move to another thread where you can disagree instead of mock.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Minos
derailment

[KevinG]

I vaguely remember a quote from Joseph talking about how messed up we were with marriage here on earth. Does anyone remember/have a reference?

Our fascination and revultion with polygamy reflects our current sensibilities. I think marriage will look like God commands it in the eternities and we may be surprised at how different it may be from what we try to attempt here in mortality.

[KevinG]

Did you write this with a straight face?

You don't need to be insulting.

I think there is some validity to that line of thought in the sense that many of the early Saints polygamous marriages seemed to be dynastic. Linking priesthood leaders families to other prominent LDS families.

[juliann]

Other than those that go back a century to avoid modern prophets, I think that several have nailed down the thinking.

1. It was done before and strong statements were made about it by leaders at that time and time and revelation stops there.

2. Polygamy is the true order of things so there will be more women than men, therefore, women are more righteous than men. (Women being more righteous has taken on a life of it's own and has thus become circular reasoning)

3. Men are sealed to more than one wife always leaves out the fact that women are sealed to more than one husband by proxy, so I'm not sure what to do with this one. It is probably the most common.

4. There will be polyandry and polygyny. This is a way of cutting through the inconsistencies, such as it being just as likely there will be excess men, but doesn't explain anything.

I think polygamy being a necessity gained ground with the idea that raising up seed meant numbers, numbers meant righteousness, righteousness lines came through male lineage.... requiring multiple wombs to up the numbers for the male. That idea hasn't caught up with what we now know about reproduction or the Proclamation on the Family.

I have zip idea what the afterlife will be like beyond the vague references to family so I find inserting something that is now considered immoral and illegal by church leadership increasingly curious. Polygamy itself (other than the history and my own polygamist line) is a big shrug to me at this point. What I do have a concern about is talk from married men about acquiring more women whether now or later. With no support whatsoever from modern leaders (quite the opposite) it tends to take on a 27 virgins kind of vibe. So I would hope for more caution when it comes to insistence that highly speculative beliefs be taken on by everyone. We all have our own personal beliefs and theories but for just about everything other than polygamy we don't tend to aggressively publicize them.

[Olavarria]

Other than those that go back a century to avoid modern prophets, I think that several have nailed down the thinking.

1. It was done before and strong statements were made about it by leaders at that time and time and revelation stops there.

2. Polygamy is the true order of things so there will be more women than men, therefore, women are more righteous than men. (Women being more righteous has taken on a life of it's own and has thus become circular reasoning)

3. Men are sealed to more than one wife always leaves out the fact that women are sealed to more than one husband by proxy, so I'm not sure what to do with this one. It is probably the most common.

4. There will be polyandry and polygyny. This is a way of cutting through the inconsistencies, such as it being just as likely there will be excess men, but doesn't explain anything.

I think polygamy being a necessity gained ground with the idea that raising up seed meant numbers, numbers meant righteousness, righteousness lines came through male lineage.... requiring multiple wombs to up the numbers for the male. That idea hasn't caught up with what we now know about reproduction or the Proclamation on the Family.

I have zip idea what the afterlife will be like beyond the vague references to family so I find inserting something that is now considered immoral and illegal by church leadership increasingly curious. Polygamy itself (other than the history and my own polygamist line) is a big shrug to me at this point. What I do have a concern about is talk from married men about acquiring more women whether now or later. With no support whatsoever from modern leaders (quite the opposite) it tends to take on a 27 virgins kind of vibe. So I would hope for more caution when it comes to insistence that highly speculative beliefs be taken on by everyone. We all have our own personal beliefs and theories but for just about everything other than polygamy we don't tend to aggressively publicize them.

Thank Julien. Great insights.

[Olavarria]

Shortly after the Manifesto of 1890, George Q. Cannon addressed the concerns of the membership who thought they would lose their exaltation since they would no longer be able to practice polygamy. Cannon's response wasn't anything remotely similar to what modern apologists say. Meaning, he didn't respond by saying "what a silly concern, since that was never required to begin with." Instead, he said:

"I know there are a great many who feel that, this being a principle of exaltation, they may be in danger of losing their exaltation, because of their inability to obey this. I want to say to all such that the Lord judges our hearts; He looks at our motives. There were a great many men in past times who never had the privilege of obeying this doctrine, because the law was not given to them. Do you think that they are excluded from exaltation? Do you think that they will be deprived of celestial glory? I do not."

Brigham Young once said,

"If we could make every man upon the earth get him a wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity, perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives."

Things that make you go hmmmmm.

Thanks Kevin, interesting insights. That GQC quote pretty much flies in the face of the "fundamentalists" who claim he was one of 5(?) men set apart to keep that principle alive. Have you ever studied up on the mormon fundamentalist origin claims?