D&C 132: 41

[stYro]

Where can I read up on this stuff? I've never heard of the "quoram of the anointed" and I've never heard of Joseph being sealed to other men.

Sorry this reply is so late.

I don't want to post links because this forum has a zero-tolerance policy against linking to sites that have temple content. So it's up to you to google-search, that is IF you are okay with visiting sites that may have temple content. You'll find that a book has been published on the topic of the Quorum of the Anointed.

I believe that Joseph Smith changed direction away from plural marriage and towards whatever the true function of the Quorum of the Anointed was. Unfortunately I don't think we have a historical record of its true function. But I believe it was intended to be a relationship that aspired extremely high, this based on cryptic comments in journal entries cited in the book mentioned above (which I have seen but do not presently have a copy of). And to the best of my knowledge this quorum was unique among [priesthood] quorums in that it included women.

I am not aware of an accessible on-line source for my claim that Joseph was sealed to other men, so I'll have to back-pedal and label that claim as merely an opinion of mine.

stYro

[Calm]

The only thing I can think of is if it matters that a male can impregnate multiple females at one time, but a female can only be impregnated by one male at a time without unusual aid. I doubt it does in the eternities, though.

Assuming that having spiritual children is anything like the mortal experience (and this is a big assumption), all that really matters when considering overall numbers is how many women are capable of being pregnant, not how many men are available to impregnate them. Given five women, one could have the same pregnancy rates whether they were all married to the same man or each woman had five husbands of her own. (note: in mortal existence, polygamy actually results in lower numbers of pregnancies per woman than monogamy does, so the idea of yielding more children is only relevant when talking about the husband's experience, not overall pregnancy rates, children per woman, etc.)

Even today with our limited mortal science, there need be no confusion over who is the father so that would appear to be a nonissue as well.

[Calm]

Well, there is a tension between the notions that on the one hand the desires God has placed within us are good and on the other hand that the natural man is an enemy to God. So if it is true that men are prone to the desire of spreading their seed around and women are prone to the desire of being with one man, then it may follow that plural marriage is part of God's ultimate design.

If it is true that women are prone to desiring being with one man is a big 'if' in my opinion. Culturally it's been beneficial for women due to childbirth, limited political and financial clout, etc., but as women become more financially independent we are also seeing women more often following the man's example of multiple sexual partners.

Also there is the question of whether or not man's proneness to wanting to 'spread his seed around' is a godly desire or one resulting from an immoral distortion of the God given sexual drive (in this day and age, it is not usually about seed, but sex and in fact the more sexually active a man is, I would guess the less likely he actually wants to have 'seed' resulting from his behaviours...at least if he is held responsible for it).

Can women love more than one man in their lives? Of course. Are they capable of loving more than one man at a time? From what I've seen, most definitely (otherwise there would never be any problem over choosing who to marry...at least if you are marrying for love and we would never have to endure all those endless chick flicks where the girl goes bonkers on which guy she should end up with). And given the nature of eternity and the infinite beings involved, is there any inherent reason to believe that ability to love will be limited in some way for women that will not be present in the experience of men generally speaking (that there are some women that can only love one man at at time is likely, but since I've seen men who believe they can only love one woman for real at a time it would seem that these limitations or lack of limitations exist in both genders in mortal experience and there seems no logical reason why this capability would be removed from one gender while allowed to continue in another)?

[Calm]

also a problem within the church of people wanting multiple spouses now.

I know of at least one man who justified his adultery by telling the woman she would be one of his wives in the eternities (more likely lose the one he has right now from what I've seen due to his treatment of women in general unless he repents big time). It is so easy to talk oneself into be the exception to the rule (everyone else has to wait, but the Lord wants me to have this blessing now) that I think in cases involving such strong drives, focusing on what is the proper way of doing things now rather than what is to come is wise, imo.

[Calm]

That policy seems a bit deceptive to me.

Why deceptive? What is deceptive about telling people this is how we are commanded to live right now?

[nicolasconnault]

I think we tend to make the mistake of "telestialising" our future celestial existence. We know very little about that future existence, so we tend to assume, extrapolate and hypothesise in order to make sense of what little data we have. We really don't know anything about "having babies" in the eternities, or how that would take place. We don't really know what our relationships will be like. The idea of each going our own way as a nuclear family to create and populate worlds is completely without scriptural foundation. Thus, any discussion of how many wives or husbands each one of us will have is based on a foundation of assumptions and may be completely irrelevant.

[Calm]

I think we tend to make the mistake of "telestialising" our future celestial existence. We know very little about that future existence, so we tend to assume, extrapolate and hypothesise in order to make sense of what little data we have. We really don't know anything about "having babies" in the eternities, or how that would take place. We don't really know what our relationships will be like. The idea of each going our own way as a nuclear family to create and populate worlds is completely without scriptural foundation. Thus, any discussion of how many wives or husbands each one of us will have is based on a foundation of assumptions and may be completely irrelevant.

Exactly (no approval points left)

It is like very young children playing at house thinking they are doing it exactly like the adults do.....

[Deborah]

I think we tend to make the mistake of "telestialising" our future celestial existence. We know very little about that future existence, so we tend to assume, extrapolate and hypothesise in order to make sense of what little data we have.

I also agree with this. I think we can't comprehend the true order of a Celestial life. This is why critics of the church who preach against our beliefs are so out of line. They totally misrepresent something that even believers don't have a full comprehension of.