Entering The Principle, Neccesary For Exaltation?

[The Dude]

I have been asking for a quote from a modern prophet saying anything close for years.

Certainly Warren Jeffs and his predecessors have spoken volumes about the necessity of plural marriage for exhaltation. They too claim to be heirs of Joseph and Brigham.

[Tsuzuki]

Why do I get the impression that one of the posters in this thread is a practicing polygamist?

[The Dude]

touche ........but you get my point right?

Not really, but I guess it's something about stereotypes.

[Zemah]

I have no idea what you are preaching about. But since I am not your famlly I am not required to place any value on what you say...and I hope even your family does some cross checks.

That saddens me greatly, for Christ and I are one.

Zemah

[Olavarria]

Not really, but I guess it's something about stereotypes.

sort of. What I mean is that since women are viewed as nothing more than sex objects or slaves by many men in this world, people then assume that polygamy is nothing more than that same curropt mentality but on a larger scale.

In other words, women are seen as such a pain in the arse that there is only "one reason" why a man would want one, let alone more than one. Or, men are so scummy that they only want women for "one reason", ergo more women means more of that dastardly "one reason".

The reason so many people are put off by any thought of polygamy, here or in the here after...is because they are put off towards men and frankly I dont think we(men) have given people(especially women) a good reason not to be.

Thats why when I here the old wives tale about "they did it because all the men were dying off", I dont roll my eyes anymore. I have a natural disposition to be somewhat liberal, but some things are really hard for people to swallow. Some people struggle with polygamy; I struggled when President Faust praised the Amish pacifists at General Conference....we all have our things.

ps. I have since conceded to the fact that Pres. Faust was right.

[katherine the great]

Why do I get the impression that one of the posters in this thread is a practicing polygamist?

Awww man! I'm busted....

I was just watching a show on the Biblical Patriarchs and it occured to me that Abraham really wasn't that good of an example for our early church fathers to use. Hagar was Sarah's slave, and she was nothing more than a concubine to Abraham. If she had the status of full wife, Sarah would not have been allowed to discipline her, and CERTAINLY not been allowed to send her and Abraham's son away. In some ways, Sarah was the "first wife from hell." Who knows about Keturah, but the text seems to indicate that Abraham was a widow when he married her. Isaac just had Rebecca. Then there was Jacob, but he was tricked into plural marriage. I guess that leaves David, but he was a king. Kings had harems. Our church's history of plural marriage seemed to be kind of a combination of Levirate-type marriage, and a more modern relationship where the first wife had to be supportive, but all wives having equal rights--no concubinage.

[katherine the great]

The reason so many people are put off by any thought of polygamy, here or in the here after...is because they are put off towards men and frankly I dont think we(men) have given people(especially women) a good reason not to be.

I can honestly say that I object to a "plurality of wives" for completely different reasons than you suggest. I am not the least bit "put off" by men. Maybe especially annoying or evil men, but not men in general.

[Olavarria]

Awww man! I'm busted....

I was just watching a show on the Biblical Patriarchs and it occured to me that Abraham really wasn't that good of an example for our early church fathers to use.

I disagree, I wish I could be half the man Abraham was.

Hagar was Sarah's slave, and she was nothing more than a concubine to Abraham.

"nothing more"? You must have some power to read minds that I lack.

If she had the status of full wife, Sarah would not have been allowed to discipline her, and CERTAINLY not been allowed to send her and Abraham's son away.

Genesis21:9-17

9

[BCSpace]

Jacob 2:30 "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."

I would think that Jacob 2:30 applies everywhere you go, even beyond mortality. Therefore the best answer is you may or may not be required.

But, will those who have failed to do it in this terrestrial life be allowed too in a celestial capacity?

I think not. That privilege shall be reserved in the afterlife to those who have overcome the enemies of God here, namely doubt and denial.

I agree. My unstated assumption was that 'you' applies only to those who obtain the highest degree in the CK.

[katherine the great]

I disagree, I wish I could be half the man Abraham was.

Oh dear, that is not what I meant at all.... Abraham was was a FABULOUS, righteous, wonderful, obedient (insert every positive adjective) prophet and patriarch. Abraham was almost always pointed to as justification for instituting plural marriage in our church. What I am saying is that I don't see him as an example of plural marriage as taught by our church. I am NOT saying anything negative whatsoever about his character. I agree that Abraham was surely one of the most obedient and important souls to ever dwell on this earth. He didn't want Hagar, but she was Sarah's slave, and it was Sarah's right to use her to produce a child. I maintain that Hagar was a concubine and not a wife. That was perfectly legal and customary in their culture, but could never (and should never) work in ours. I also maintain that Zilpah and Bilhah were concubines as well. If you disagree, maybe you could do some research on laws and customs of the place and time.

[katherine the great]

No, he was tricked into marrying Leah. No trick was neccesary to take Billah and Zilpah.

What I find interesting is that Jacob could theoretcially have dumped Leah. Afterall, he was decieved.

I cant imagine a righteous priesthood council, assuming there was one back then, enforcing such a marriage. I wouldnt be surprised to find out that Jacob kept Leah out of compassion for her as an older sister. He didnt have to take Rachel, but he insisted.

Oh, come on. He wasn't going to dump Leah. He had already consummated the marriage, and Laban sure as heck wasn't going to give Rachel to him if he didn't honor his marriage to Leah. A righteous priesthood council? Are you serious? Laban was a pagan idol worshipper. Jacob was "alone in his principles" for at least fourteen years in Haran.

[charity's child]

He didn't want Hagar, but she was Sarah's slave, and it was Sarah's right to use her to produce a child. I maintain that Hagar was a concubine and not a wife. That was perfectly legal and customary in their culture, but could never (and should never) work in ours.

I don't know, I suppose it could work. Let's see, first we have to get polygamy legalized. Then we have to get slavery legalized . . .

[Olavarria]

Joseph F. Smith said, according to the Journal of Discourses: "Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one.

"I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false â?¦ this is the beginning of the law, not the whole of it," he said. "Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it."

http://media.www.suujournal.com/media/stor...n-3076569.shtml

Can anyone tell me were this quote is?

ps. I am against "fundamentalism". Gordon B. Hinckley is the only man who has the power to exercise all priesthood keys.

[mnn727]

It does not matter if you find a quote from Brigham Young or Orsen Pratt or anyone else in the history of teh Church saying you must 'enter the principle'.

There is a new day and a new law, prior leaders were speaking with limited light and knowledge and its time for everyone to follow the living Prophet.

regards to Elder Bruce R McConkie

Seriously, God commands when we MUST do it and He also commands when we must NOT do it. We must not enter it now, but who knows about the next life.

[Olavarria]

Seriously, God commands when we MUST do it and He also commands when we must NOT do it. We must not enter it now, but who knows about the next life.

Amen, two living wives at the same time is currently against God's law. Dont misunderstand me.

I'm Hinckley-ite until the day he dies.

One thing is true though, regardless of what the answer to the OP is, no amount of quotes from leaders past or present can have an effect of what actually takes place in the CK.

There is a right answer to this questian and there is a wrong answer as well. We just might not have it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

"A man can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with but one wife," Brigham Young Letterbook II:735

[Lachoneus]

Editor's Table

Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered

. . . .

Question 6: Can a Latter-day Saint be a true member of the Church and in good standing, who flatly denies the divinity and authenticity of the revelation on plural marriage?

Answer: No one can be counted a true Latter-day Saint who flatly denies the divinity of a revelation accepted as divine by the Church.

. . . .

Yours sincerely,

CHARLES W. PENROSE,

Of the First Presidency.

15 Improvement Era (#11) 1042 (1912)

[erichard]

"A man can be saved in the Celestial Kingdom with but one wife," Brigham Young Letterbook II:735

But being SAVED in the Celestial Kingdom may not be the same as GAINING EXALTATION.

Right?

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage] (ie. this is ONE of the requirements);

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

---D&C 131

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

--D&C 132

Possibly doing "all the works of Abraham" does not include actually living plural marriage-- although they must accept it as part of the law that others may live.

Yet, on the other hand, it may very well be that since Abraham lived plural marriage one MUST also ACTUALLY live it to obtain the same reward as Abraham.

Notice that is says that there are THREE degrees. The first degree is for those who are single. The Third degree is for those who do ALL the works of Abraham and gain exaltation as Joint-heirs with Christ.

I have evidence that those in the second, or middle degree, will be those who enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage and are faithful to it-- with one or possible more than one wife-- but who do not do ALL the works of Abraham.

Thus, they will have an Eternal Marriage and will raise up spirit children-- who will be born eventually on the earth created for an exalted "Abraham" that they are subject to.

Richard

[jadams_4242]

But being SAVED in the Celestial Kingdom may not be the same as GAINING EXALTATION.

Right?

Possibly doing "all the works of Abraham" does not include actually living plural marriage-- although they must accept it as part of the law that others may live.

Yet, on the other hand, it may very well be that since Abraham lived plural marriage one MUST also ACTUALLY live it to obtain the same reward as Abraham.

Notice that is says that there are THREE degrees. The first degree is for those who are single. The Third degree is for those who do ALL the works of Abraham and gain exaltation as Joint-heirs with Christ.

I have evidence that those in the second, or middle degree, will be those who enter into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage and are faithful to it-- with one or possible more than one wife-- but who do not do ALL the works of Abraham.

Thus, they will have an Eternal Marriage and will raise up spirit children-- who will be born eventually on the earth created for an exalted "Abraham" that they are subject to.

Richard

Fascinating to say the least. I dont think any of us know all the truth?

[kamenraider]

I have been asking for a quote from a modern prophet saying anything close for years.

Don't hold your breath, juliann.

There is one thing I am sure about, that is, that there has not been a leitimate plural marriage in the eyes of God or the Church since 1904 and that Lorin C. Whooly was a false prophet.

That's two things.

Who is Lorin C. Whooly?

At the end of D. Michael Quinn's paper on post-manifesto plural marriage, he wrote:

Moreover, the saga of new plural marriages among the Mormons continued after 1904. It does not take a very close reading of the First Presidency letter of October 1904 to realize that it rescinded only authorizations given by Presidents Woodruff and Snow to seal marriages out of the temple and did not mention any similar authorizations given by Joseph F. Smith. And so the ambiguity persisted, enough to allow certain General Authorities in the next three years to make no fewer than ten exceptions to what was now almost a universal ban on new polygamy.

It's kind of interesting how as part of the "Second Manifesto" in 1904, Joseph F. Smith declared that plural marriages after the Manifesto of 1890 did not have Church sanction or consent:

April 6, 1904

Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.

JOSEPH F. SMITH,

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

One time when I was younger I was having an argument with my mother about whether the Church recognized post-manifesto plural marriages. We had a Stake Conference right after that and Henry B. Eyring was visiting for it. I took my mom up to talk to him after the Sunday meeting, and mentioned that I had relatives that were married in Mexico after the manifesto just as he did, and asked him if the Church recognizes those sealings. He smiled at us and said "Oh, of course!"

In D&C 132 we read (note what the Lord's answer is regarding):

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubinesâ??

2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter.

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.

4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

That sounds an awful lot to me like the "new and everlasting covenant" includes a plurality of wives.

People like Max Anderson like to quote verse 19 and point out that it mentions "a man" and "a wife", thus implying that no polygamy is required for exaltation, however, a man has a separate sealing ceremony and relationship with each of his wives.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto themâ??Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depthsâ??then shall it be written in the Lambâ??s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

22 For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me.

23 But if ye receive me in the world, then shall ye know me, and shall receive your exaltation; that where I am ye shall be also.

24 This is eternal livesâ??to know the only wise and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent. I am he. Receive ye, therefore, my law.

Does "my law" include polygamy? Read on:

30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loinsâ??from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Josephâ??which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

34 God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people. This, therefore, was fulfilling, among other things, the promises.

Again, does the following sound like polygamy is not included?

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife.

66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.

Here's more from John Taylor in 1886 (Note what Pres. Taylor is asking about BTW -- not just monogamous sealings. He wanted to know if the Church could give up polygamy.):

September 27, 1886

My son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people.

Thus saith the Lord All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant?

For I the Lord am everlasting and my covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand forever.

Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject?

Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandment, and yet have I borne with them these many years and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times. And furthermore it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters.

Nevertheless I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not.

And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph all those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law

And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory they must do the works of Abraham.

I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen.

The Church certainly does not require us to live this law right now. Are we eternally off the hook then?

[erichard]

...Who is Lorin C. Whooly?

...

It may be that J. Max Anderson is not correct in everything he wrote, but his book did a good job keeping the fundamentalists from pulling the "Wooley" over my eyes when I read it just after it came out in 1979. Would you recommend that anyone get caught up in the Colorado City mess?

That sounds an awful lot to me like the "new and everlasting covenant" includes a plurality of wives.

I still accept that the New and Everlasting Covenant can be lived with just one wife. In other words, I believe that there will be men in the Celestial Kingdom married eternally to just one wife. There will, of course, also be men with more than one wife. The covenant does not exclude non-plural marriages. Would you not agree?

...

The Church certainly does not require us to live this law right now. Are we eternally off the hook then?

In my non-LDS faith, of course, the Church is not "off the hook" in this matter. I just have to read the Preface revelation from the Second Book of Commandments:

Received March 30, 1965

At Wellington, Utah

Behold I say unto you all ye nations of the earth, yea all who come within the sound of My voice, for I perceive the thoughts and intents of all men, and they are surely known unto Me, for there is no prayer that is not considered, nor is there a curse that is hidden.

2 To these all, I say unto you repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is nigh at hand. To those who are members of My church, and particularly the leaders of My church, I also say unto you repent, for you now ignore and have ignored My servants whom I have sent.

3 You ignore the wailings of the widows and orphans who pray continually upon Me for deliverance, and you place upon them burdens that ye yourself would not be willing to bear, and then condemn them for their actions if they do err.

4 Behold I say unto you, that their sins shall be counted upon your heads, and when ye stand before Me, ye shall have no excuse, for My gospel is plainly written so that even a child can therein understand.

5 But by some device of mind ye excuse yourselves, saying that such things are done away with.

6 Behold I say unto you, I detract none of My law, and to those who know and understand and live not, they are under condemnation, and shall be made to answer before My judgment at that day appointed.

7 Behold, have I not said [D&C 132:44] concerning those whose spouses have committed adultery and who have been true and faithful, that they shall be given to him that hath not committed adultery, but hath been faithful? For thus it is decreed that the faithful be made ruler over many.

8 Behold I say unto you, do ye do this? I say unto you nay; and many other things ye do not that I have commanded, supposing that they are not now necessary.

9 But I say unto you, that this is My law so that the innocent may not suffer, for a man by nature will take care of his own, but hesitates to take care of that which to him does not belong.

10 Yea, ye use as your excuse that the law of the land forbids this. Behold, I say unto you, it is not the law that ye fear, but the persecution that follows those that keep all My commandments.

11 Behold My servant Joseph Smith, whom ye do now claim as a prophet, and do honor him in his rightful place, behold I say unto you, that he feared not men and continually petitioned the unrighteous judge to seek justice and redress for the wrongs done to My people and to those he loved.

12 And now I command that ye shall continually seek the rectification of the law of this land to the end that My saints can keep all My commandments according to the law, and if they hear not thy petition and allow them not to keep My commandments-- and ye do all in your power to bring this about-- then I shall fight your battles, and then shall this rebellious nation be destroyed as My will shall decree.

13 But if ye keep not My commandments, and seek not to bring about My will concerning this nation, behold it is because ye fear men, and esteem the world of greater worth than My kingdom, and to be carnally minded is death, for thus it is to be carnally minded.

14 Behold My servant whom I have sent is but dung, and for this reason ye esteem him not, but for this reason I use those that are weak and not learned in the ways of men, for if a man comes in his wisdom, ye shall say it is of man, for by his wisdom he doth obtain this knowledge; but if I send one who is not learned, behold, ye cannot say by his own wisdom he doeth this thing, then is it not of God?

15 Behold, I do send My servant, and in him I do place My Spirit; and by his weaknesses he is made strong, for without them I cannot convince My people.

16 Where do ye stand then My friends? For ye still remain My friends until ye openly rebel against Me, for now is the time to repent, and thy sins shall be forgiven thee, and by My Spirit shall the truth of these things be made manifest; and by this Spirit, if ye remain faithful, ye shall know the truth of all things.

17 Dwell not upon the things of this earth, but upon heavenly things that thy soul may be lifted up unto the understanding of a higher knowledge.

18 Be not despondent but encouraged! Fight for that which ye know to be right, and be not afraid. Courage, onward to a victory that shall culminate in lives everlasting to your eternal glory for evermore!

19 Let thy minds be pure so that My Spirit may dwell within thee, and let thy hands be clean and free from the shedding of innocent blood, for this is an unpardonable sin which resulted in My servant David in losing his portion of My kingdom.

20 Be as serpents wise, and doves innocent. Be perfect in all things, and heed the counsel of My servants.

Even so, Amen.

[juliann]

I don't know, I suppose it could work. Let's see, first we have to get polygamy legalized. Then we have to get slavery legalized . . .

The Bible makes no bones about how miserable the polygamist wives were....it is a lesson in how to set up a dysfunctional family.

I have never seen a polygamy supporter deal with the realities of today, they cannot seem to remove themselves from the 19th century. Women are no longer politically repressed in Western countries and that really does have to be factored in when constructing polygamy fantasies.

[juliann]

That sounds an awful lot to me like the "new and everlasting covenant" includes a plurality of wives.

Except there is an official statement saying otherwise. And First Presidency statements trump JOD newspaper articles.

"Celestial marriage--that is, marriage for time and eternity--and polygamous or plural marriage are not synonomous terms. Monogamous marriages for time and eternity, solemnized in our temples in accordance with the word of the Lord and the laws of the Church, are Celestial marriages."

Heber J. Grant

Anthony W. Ivins,

J. Reuben Clark, Jr.

James R. Clark, Messages Of The First Presidency, 5:329.

It doesn't matter how many times I post this, it is not acknowledged.

The Church certainly does not require us to live this law right now. Are we eternally off the hook then?

As long as free will is in play. Who is going to make us do anything when we are gods? And if we aren't gods....why worry? And most pressing...what universe is the amorous god going to raid to get the numbers of women required for lots and lots of wives?

Still waiting for a statement from a modern prophet.....

[Teancum]

Except there is an official statement saying otherwise. And First Presidency statements trump JOD newspaper articles.

It doesn't matter how many times I post this, it is not acknowledged.

As long as free will is in play. Who is going to make us do anything when we are gods? And if we aren't gods....why worry? And most pressing...what universe is the amorous god going to raid to get the numbers of women required for lots and lots of wives?

Still waiting for a statement from a modern prophet.....

The quote is a fine one for Saints after plural marriage was done away with. Sure this is the position from Pres. Grant forward. However, in the 19 century it is pretty clear that Brigham and other Church leaders taught that celestial marriage was plural marriage and such was required for exaltation in their minds and in what they taught.

[Olavarria]

The quote is a fine one for Saints after plural marriage was done away with. Sure this is the position from Pres. Grant forward. However, in the 19 century it is pretty clear that Brigham and other Church leaders taught that celestial marriage was plural marriage and such was required for exaltation in their minds and in what they taught.

We have an interesting situation here.

1)BY and a few others make it seem like pluarilty is essential for exaltation.

2) Pres. Grant , Pre. Penrose and a few others make it seem that it is not essential.

Who is right? WHo is wrong?

I say they are both right

Eh? How?

The Lord reveals to us according to our circumstances....further light and nowledge and all that jazz.

If you are commanded to do XYZ and you dont do XYZ, unless you repent, you cant get exaltation.

We are not commanded to do XYZ today ergo we arent recquired to XYZ in order to be exalted.

BUt the questian arises, what about the next life? I think Elder Oaks set a good example for all of us:

HW: Yes, but I would imagine that that challenge at that moment for Joseph F. Smith was, â??How will I reach out to the flock and tell them that I might have been up on the stand saying things I didnâ??t quite believe in, or that Iâ??ve abandoned the law of the land, or that Iâ??m not really a revelator and Iâ??m abandoning a central principle â?¦â? and tell them that the real stuff still is there. You know, how do I reassure?

DHO: Oh, yes. She wrote about that so movingly, and Iâ??d never thought of it. That was something that was new to me, but it rang true.

HW: And the â??itâ? being just that dilemma that the Church faced, about reassuring the Saints that abandoning polygamy would not adversely affect the doctrine.

DHO: Thatâ??s right. And Iâ??m sure my ancestors would have wanted to be reassured.

Also...

HW: There still is some confusion that polygamy is definitively and unequivocally disallowed in this world. What will happen in the next? There is a perception that polygamy is part of the afterlife. Could you talk a little about that?

DHO: If I talked about that Iâ??d be making doctrinal statements where the prophet has not chosen to make doctrinal statements, so I think I shouldnâ??t say anything except to affirm that a lot of people, myself included, are in multiple-marriage situations. Look at the significance of that. There are a lot of people that live on this earth that have been married to more than one person. Sometimes those marriages have ended with death; sometimes theyâ??ve ended with divorce. What does the next life mean to them in relation to a covenant they once made and so on? I donâ??t think those people have much of an answer for that question. It might not bother them because they donâ??t believe that people will live as married couples in the next life. And if they donâ??t make and live for the covenants to do that, [as for themselves] theyâ??re right! But for people who live in the belief, as I do, that marriage relations can be for eternity, then you must say, â??What will life be in the next life, when youâ??re married to more than one wife for eternity?â? I have to say I donâ??t know. But I know that Iâ??ve made those covenants, and I believe if I am true to the covenants that the blessing thatâ??s anticipated here will be realized in the next life. How? Why, I donâ??t know.

http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp...0004e94610aRCRD

Ill admit it, I want to practice plural marrige in the next life.

I also admit that this desire, whether righteous or unrighteous, will cloud my understanding of the facts.

Whether I have to have 1,2 or 100 wives in the eternities...I have no idea.

But one thing is certain, I have to have at least one wife to be exalted and I haven't manage dto do that yet.

So to answer the OP, is plurality recquired for exaltation?

I dont know, I hope so, but I really dont know.

God is good and what ever happends, there aren't any gods with arms folded saying "no fair".