Is polygamy required in heaven?

[baddonkey]

In the Celestial Kingdom, we won't have to do anything we don't want to do.

Quite true, and since I don't want to ever be a plural wife, I certainly wont have to, otherwise it would not be heaven. Women must cetainly have some eternal value other than just celestial baby machines.

[Ahab]

Women must cetainly have some eternal value other than just celestial baby machines.

Certainly, just as men must certainly have some eternal value other than just to make women pregnant.

[phaedrus ut]

Quite true, and since I don't want to ever be a plural wife, I certainly wont have to, otherwise it would not be heaven. Women must cetainly have some eternal value other than just celestial baby machines.

It's often repeated by many that don't like polygamy that they will be able to choose whether or not that is the case and it seems likely by modern church practice that that will be the case.

But one thing for sure is you'll be living in a society of polygamists and may likely have them in your immediate family. Your father may take multiple wives and you'll have multiple eternal step moms. Your son may choose to take multiple wives and you'll have multiple daughters in law.

Phaedrus

[cinepro]

Either they married for "time only" (as far as God's law is concerned) or they didn't get married (and sealed) to anyone, preferring instead to remain single, and there are many more than you can imagine who fit into that category.

Yes, but won't all those people have the chance to be sealed to someone else? Or are you saying there are many people who know about the sealing power, have the faith necessary to enter qualify for and enter the Celestial Kingdom, but willfully choose to not be sealed?

Because if it's more than 10 people, it would be more than I can imagine.

Are you aware of the fact that many Christians don't believe there is such a thing as marriage in heaven, in the sense of remaining the spouse of the one they are currently married to now?

A person has to believe it is at least possible before they can believe it can happen to them, and many people now believe that it isn't even possible, even though it really is if they will do what they need to do.

Sure, but we're talking about people who qualify for the Celestial Kingdom. Presumably, everyone who qualifies will know about the Sealing power and its importance to their exaltation.

[William James]

I am not really sure about this but in order for a man to make it to the highest degree in the CK does he have to be practicing polygamy there?

In my opnion, the short answer is, "Of course not!"

But the more important question, in my opinion, is not whether God does or does not require it, but rather why he would or wouldn't. I do not believe that God generally commands anyone to marry anyone else. I believe he leaves it up to us to decide. By the same token, I believe God neither commands polygyny, nor does he prohibit it among fully consenting adults. The decision of whom to marry is highly personal and intimate, and in this matter, God can give us a certain amount of inspiration to sense the degree of compatability of a prospective mate, but he does not generally tell us we must or must not marry that person.

[cinepro]

In my opnion, the short answer is, "Of course not!"

But the more important question, in my opinion, is not whether God does or does not require it, but rather why he would or wouldn't.

Well, He probably would if the number of women qualifying for the highest degree of the CK was greater than the number of men. If it were equal, there could be no polygamy, and if there were more men, there would be polyandry.

I do not believe that God generally commands anyone to marry anyone else. I believe he leaves it up to us to decide. By the same token, I believe God neither commands polygyny, nor does he prohibit it among fully consenting adults. The decision of whom to marry is highly personal and intimate, and in this matter, God can give us a certain amount of inspiration to sense the degree of compatability of a prospective mate, but he does not generally tell us we must or must not marry that person.

I can think of at least 24 women in Nauvoo who might disagree with you.

[Ahab]

Yes, but won't all those people have the chance to be sealed to someone else?

Yes, unless they've already had that chance but refused to comply. Having the chance to be sealed to someone else doesn't equate to choosing to be sealed to someone else, and some people would or may rather be single than be sealed to someone else who may already have another spouse. In other words, some people would rather have no spouse than a spouse they must share with someone else.

Or are you saying there are many people who know about the sealing power, have the faith necessary to enter qualify for and enter the Celestial Kingdom, but willfully choose to not be sealed?

Yes, that about sums it up, I think.

Because if it's more than 10 people, it would be more than I can imagine.

And like I said, there are more than you can imagine.

Sure, but we're talking about people who qualify for the Celestial Kingdom. Presumably, everyone who qualifies will know about the Sealing power and its importance to their exaltation.

Yes, and even while knowing about that, they will have chosen to remain single by not doing whatever it takes to be and remain sealed to a spouse.

[zeezrom]

In the Celestial Kingdom, we won't have to do anything we don't want to do.

Isn't that what makes us stronger? Lucy Walker and Helen Kimball did not originally want to marry Joseph either. Abraham didn't want to sacrifice his son. Nephi's brothers didn't want to get the brass plates.

Why would the Celestial Kingdom be different? Is there an end to progression? (If you could hie to kolob...)

[zeezrom]

Quite true, and since I don't want to ever be a plural wife, I certainly wont have to, otherwise it would not be heaven. Women must cetainly have some eternal value other than just celestial baby machines.

Well stated. Could it be a possibility that gender has a greater emphasis on earth than in heaven?

[LeSellers]

Could it be a possibility that gender has a greater emphasis on earth than in heaven?

"Gender" is a linguistics/grammatical concept, it has nothing to do with "sex". It would be nice if people could be more precise in using technical terms.

But, even if we're not being precise, sex is at least as important in heaven as here on earth. Read, e.g., section 132, return to the Temple, look at the Proclamation on the Family.

Lehi

[Ahab]

"Gender" is a linguistics/grammatical concept, it has nothing to do with "sex".

Actually, gender is exactly what sex is, unless you are referring to how sex is used to refer to sexual relations.

Btw, I learned that in elementary school after I wrote in the word "Yes" for sex on one of the forms they gave me to fill out.

It would be nice if people could be more precise in using technical terms.

I agree.

From now on, whenever you see the word "sex", please think of it as either male or female, if you want to be technically correct.

[LeSellers]

Actually, gender is exactly what sex is, unless you are referring to how sex is used to refer to sexual relations.

No.

"Gender" is masculine, feminine, or neuter.

Just because, in English, they correspond, most of the time, with the sex of the object does not mean the words "sex" and "gender" are interchangeable.

In French, for instance, a word for "penis" is "[la] verge", which is a feminine word. Gender, in this case, the feminine, is based (largely, but not exclusively) on the form and derivation of the word. There is, for instance, one and only one Italian word ending in "o" that is feminine: "[la] mano" (hand).

Even in English the concept of gender is not wholly related to the sex of the object. We have ships (all but one, "Doc") are feminine. Many people call their cars "she", and so on. We assume until proven otherwise, that a cat is a "she" and a dog a "he". In classic usage, "he" (and "him", "his, etc.) refers to any person of unknown sex, including babies and the ubiquitous "anyone".

Btw, I learned that in elementary school after I wrote in the word "Yes" for sex on one of the forms they gave me to fill out.

I'm sure, sounds like something an elementary kid would do.

From now on, whenever you see the word "sex", please think of it as either male or female, if you want to be technically correct.

Which is exactly the subject we're talking about: "sex", not "gender'.

Lehi

[Ahab]

No.

"Gender" is masculine, feminine, or neuter.

Just because, in English, they correspond, most of the time, with the sex of the object does not mean the words "sex" and "gender" are interchangeable.

Sex of the object? What do you mean by that, if you're not referring to either male, or female... or neuter.

In French, for instance, a word for "penis" is "[la] verge", which is a feminine word.

I'm not talking about genetalia, or the words that some people use to refer to their "parts".

Heck, I know a guy whose wife calls his special member of his male body... well, nevermind, just saying you don't have to use a name usually given to a male to refer to a specific part of a male body... in French or any other language.

Which is exactly the subject we're talking about: "sex", not "gender'.

Yeah, I know, and as I was saying, sex is either male or female, or in some cases "neuter" (or even in some cases, both, kinda sorta).

You then disagreed, and here I am trying to straighten you out, again, Mr. LeSellers, just as you were trying to straighten me out, because you think I'm wrong, while I think you're wrong, at least a little bit.

[zeezrom]

Anyway, why would anyone think this:

"In the Celestial Kingdom, we won't have to do anything we don't want to do."

Suddenly different rules apply in heaven?

[Ahab]

Anyway, why would anyone think this:

"In the Celestial Kingdom, we won't have to do anything we don't want to do."

Suddenly different rules apply in heaven?

No, the same rules apply, I think, and actually none of us have to do anything we don't want to do, anytime.

That doesn't mean God, or other people, can't do something to us that we don't want them to do, though.

We are in control of all of our actions, otherwise they're not our actions and we're not responsible for them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Anyway, why would anyone think this:

"In the Celestial Kingdom, we won't have to do anything we don't want to do."

Suddenly different rules apply in heaven?

It has not been established that you have to practice polygamy to go to the CK. Until that is establish then there is no point in even saying things such as "In the Celestial Kingdom, we won't have to do anything we don't want to do."

[zeezrom]

No, the same rules apply, I think, and actually none of us have to do anything we don't want to do, anytime.

We may have to.... if we want to get to the Celestial kingdom.

[LeSellers]

Sex of the object? What do you mean by that, if you're not referring to either male, or female... or neuter.

The word "cow" is not a cow. It's the word that, in English, we use to refer to the cow. The cow is female, her sex is female, but the gender of the word "cow" is in most case, feminine. The cow is the object, the word cow, that refers to her, is not female, it is feminine, that is, its gender is feminine.

Objects have sex, that is, they can be male, female or neither. Words have gender.

Gender refers to a grammatical concept that is attached to a word, not to the object the word refers to.

I'm not talking about genetalia, or the words that some people use to refer to their "parts".

Neither was I. I used la verge to make the point that gender is not related to the sex of the object the word refers to.

just saying you don't have to use a name usually given to a male to refer to a specific part of a male body... in French or any other language.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, because I didn't say so, either.

Yeah, I know, and as I was saying, sex is either male or female, or in some cases "neuter"... or even in some cases, both (kinda sorta).

You then disagreed, and here I am trying to straighten you out, again, Mr. LeSellers, ...

My name is Lehi and I invite you to use it, just as my mother-in-law does and Presidents Clinton and Carter did.

... just as you were trying to straighten me out, because you think I'm wrong, while I think you're wrong, at least a little bit.

I do not think you are wrong, you are.

[Ahab]

We may have to.... if we want to get to the Celestial kingdom.

The Celestial kingdom is reserved for those who want to do what it takes to go there, and if you don't want to do any of those things that it takes to go there, you don't have to, even though God is telling you to do those things because he would really like you to go there.

It's all up to you, though, because God has already done and will continue to do all he can do, which thus leaves you responsible for your own destiny.

[Ahab]

The word "cow" is not a cow. It's the word that, in English, we use to refer to the cow. The cow is female, her sex is female, but the gender of the word "cow" is in most case, feminine. The cow is the object, the word cow, that refers to her, is not female, it is feminine, that is, its gender is feminine.

Objects have sex, that is, they can be male, female or neither. Words have gender.

I agree with all the above, even when I substitute the word sex for gender while making a few modifications, like this:

The word "cow" is not a cow. It's the word that, in English, we use to refer to the cow. The cow is female, her sex is female, but the gender (sex) of the word "cow" is in most case ( I would say all cases), feminine. The cow is the object, the word cow, that refers to her, is not female, it is feminine, that is, its gender (sex) is feminine.

Objects have sex, that is, they can be male, female or neither. Words have gender (sex, or I would say refer to the sex of the object).

Gender refers to a grammatical concept that is attached to a word, not to the object the word refers to.

I would say words refer to the gender (sex) of the object, in most cases.

I used la verge to make the point that gender is not related to the sex of the object the word refers to.

That's what I thought, and I was saying that words don't always conform to the sex (gender) of the object, as in the case of a friend's wife who has what I regard as a wild sense of humor.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, because I didn't say so, either.

Well, good.

My name is Lehi and I invite you to use it, just as my mother-in-law does and Presidents Clinton and Carter did.

Hello Lehi. Please refer to me as Ahab until I ask you to do otherwise.

I do not think you are wrong, you are.

I already know you think I am, and if I am, it's not a biggie, so try your best to continue to show your love to me without getting upset at me, at which point I may esteem you to be my enemy, which wouldn't be good.

Notice that the primary definition and origin are all about the form of the word, not the object the word names. It's the prudish and imprecise who substitute "gender" for "sex".

Lehi

In your opinion, which I'm sure you regard very highly, especially when other people agree with you, who I see as also being wrong in their idea that sex doesn't correctly refer to whether an "object" is male, or female, or neuter, or both (kinda sorta).

p.s. I think I get it now, after some more thought, and inspiration.

I think you're saying gender isn't the same thing as sex even though gender is usually related (or relative) to the sex of the object, and I agree with that.

My point was more along the lines of how the sex of the human race is either male or female... not neuter or both... and that is what our gender is too, one or the other.

[LeSellers]

I agree with all the above, even when I substitute the word sex for gender while making a few modifications, like this:

The word "cow" is not a cow. It's the word that, in English, we use to refer to the cow. The cow is female, her sex is female, but the gender (sex) of the word "cow" is in most case ( I would say all cases), feminine.

It is not all cases because the word cow can (and often does) refer to the entire herd, bulls and steers included.

The cow is the object, the word cow, that refers to her, is not female, it is feminine, that is, its gender (sex) is feminine.

This does not even make any sense. A word (like "cow") does not have the characteristic of "sex". Unless you believe that two words can mate and produce offspring. That only happens in Washington, D.C.

A word (here specifying nouns, pronouns, and adjectives) has gender.

Objects have sex, that is, they can be male, female or neither. Words have gender (sex, or I would say refer to the sex of the object).

Only (or almost exclusively) in English. In German, [ein] m

[frankenstein]

If I may, interject, as much as my half public half private for profit school learning goes a "cow" is the female of the cattle and bulls are male. Though with the gender confusion of the times, it does not suprise me that what I was taught is not longer the case - for instance consider the childrens movie wherein the "cow" was male but had an utter.

[zeezrom]

The Celestial kingdom is reserved for those who want to do what it takes to go there, and if you don't want to do any of those things that it takes to go there, you don't have to, even though God is telling you to do those things because he would really like you to go there.

It's all up to you, though, because God has already done and will continue to do all he can do, which thus leaves you responsible for your own destiny.

But that is not my argument. I was debating whether it is true that we can just do whatever we want once we are already in the CK. My question is, once you are there, are you done progressing? Do you rest forever? Will you ever be asked to do something that is difficult? Someone said "you don't have to do anything you don't want to do in the CK." If it is true that you are to eternally progress, would you not have to continue being tried and stretched? If that is true, I would contend that yes, you may very likely have to do something you don't want to do in the CK.

[Deborah]

The key is that if you are going to the CK what you want will be in line with what the Lord wants for you. One heart and one mind.

[kamenraider]

IF you can find a quote from an offical source stating that it is I wouldn't worry about it. As far as I know polygamy is not required. The answer to your question is no.

Here's a quote from an official source:

We have always taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage, as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come.

...

[signed]

Wilford Woodruff

George Q. Cannon

Joseph F. Smith

Lorenzo Snow

Franklin D. Richards

Moses Thatcher

Francis M. Lyman

Heber J. Grant

John Henry Smith

John W. Taylor

Marriner W. Merrill

Anthon H. Lund

Abraham H. Cannon

--"Amnesty," Contributor 13 (Feb. 1892): 196. (another version in MFP 3:230 begins "We formerly taught...")

Polygamy is not required by the Church now though, nor is it even allowed.

The question should be whether or not it is required by the Lord. He said in the Sept. 27, 1886 revelation to John Taylor that "I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not."

The idea that different groups of people can receive the same blessings while being subject to different requirements for obeying eternal laws is contrary to what Joseph Smith taught: "Ordinances instituted in heaven before the foundation of this world in the Priesthood for the salvation of man, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles. ... If a man gets the fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it; and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord." (TPJS pg. 308)