juliann Posted July 18, 2011 Author Posted July 18, 2011 To me, active LDS, the answer is No. Yes, it was an eternal principle to those who were commanded to live it. But since I am not commanded to live it, it is not an eternal principle, and I feel no obligation to answer Yes for this reason. Could it become someday a commandment? How should I know? Any answer involves a lot of speculation mingled with prophets' words and scriptures, but I don't think any answer as to whether the prophet would require it, or whether it will be required in the Celestial Kingdom, or Millenium, or whatever, cannot come without at least some speculation. Xander's question as to whether I would accept it if the prophet announced it, is an unfair question. If that happened, then I would have the luxury of fasting, praying, visiting the temple to get a confirmation of it, etc - and acceptance of mine of such a principle should not be expected without doing these things. Since the prophet has made no announcement, then I do not need to think about it, pray, fast, go to the temple and do the things that would be necessary to accept it - hence I don't need to answer Xander's question. If indeed someday the prophet announces it, then I would hope that I would be willing to do what the Lord commands, but I will not answer yes or no as to whether I would accept it today because I can't answer that without the commandment being already given - I cannot be expected to accept a commandment that hasn't been given. I have never seen this articulated. Thank you for breaking new ground!
juliann Posted July 18, 2011 Author Posted July 18, 2011 But it seems to me like we're pushed to make that decision now, not when the time comes. There obviously is, but why do you think there is a push?
juliann Posted July 18, 2011 Author Posted July 18, 2011 The Church is distancing itself only from current practice. The Church does not apologize for nor has it invalidated previous practice or ancient legitimate practice.Does something so obvious require a post? I'd appreciate it if you would stop implying that I am saying things I am not and have not. It derails the thread.
juliann Posted July 18, 2011 Author Posted July 18, 2011 Since I don't fit the requirements laid down in the opening post my beliefs about polygamy would be irrelevant, but I do think Deborah has said something profound here. I don't think any of us have ever seen a social structure that wasn't largely based on selfishness and jealousy (and a few other negatives). Things may be very, very different up there. I will venture this opinion: Whatever the order of heaven is, it's got to be a better deal for everyone involved. Otherwise, it's not heaven.Well stated. I think that is something that everyone can agree with.
juliann Posted July 18, 2011 Author Posted July 18, 2011 To me, active LDS, the answer is No. Yes, it was an eternal principle to those who were commanded to live it. But since I am not commanded to live it, it is not an eternal principle, and I feel no obligation to answer Yes for this reason. Fly, Valerie Hudson (who will be speaking at FAIR next month) has pointed out that the Abraham's command to sacrifice Isaac is directly used to explain the command to engage in plural marriage in D&C 132. I had never seen that addressed before, or noticed it, and it begs the question of what we refer to as the Abrahamic sacrifice that tests God's children. It is usually considered a test of faith and we sometimes explain plural marriage that way. However, we stop there. The point of Abraham's sacrifice was not just that he was willing but that he was spared. The Lord supplied a ram. Hudson does not arbitrarily stop at the test of faith and applies the complete story to the wives, i.e., a metaphorical ram will be provided and like Abraham, they will then be released from the command. In other words, a command can be given that must be obeyed as an indispensible part of mortal experience leading toward eternal life, but that does not translate into it being an ongoing requirement. Abraham is not going to be asked to personally and repeatedly sacrifice children for eternity. The request was fulfilled and served its purpose. I'd be interested in your opinion of Hudson's theory.
mbh26 Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 There obviously is, but why do you think there is a push?I just think the law of consecration and it's current level of practical application in our world is similar to plural marriage. One can commit to giving up his land if asked to do so, but does he really know he can do it or how he will endure the long term consequences of such a forfeiture until it actually happens. I shouldn't even give in to my desire to play devil's advocate on this. Plural marriage will be easy in the next world. Do you think we'll all have to divide our Heavenly parents attention. That would leave each one of us with about, as close to no time at all as you can come without reaching zero. It won't be an issue like it is on earth.
Fly Fisherman Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 Fly, Valerie Hudson (who will be speaking at FAIR next month) has pointed out that the Abraham's command to sacrifice Isaac is directly used to explain the command to engage in plural marriage in D&C 132. I had never seen that addressed before, or noticed it, and it begs the question of what we refer to as the Abrahamic sacrifice that tests God's children. It is usually considered a test of faith and we sometimes explain plural marriage that way. However, we stop there. The point of Abraham's sacrifice was not just that he was willing but that he was spared. The Lord supplied a ram. Hudson does not arbitrarily stop at the test of faith and applies the complete story to the wives, i.e., a metaphorical ram will be provided and like Abraham, they will then be released from the command. In other words, a command can be given that must be obeyed as an indispensible part of mortal experience leading toward eternal life, but that does not translate into it being an ongoing requirement. Abraham is not going to be asked to personally and repeatedly sacrifice children for eternity. The request was fulfilled and served its purpose. I'd be interested in your opinion of Hudson's theory.Yes I have pondered Hudson's theory. "There is always a ram in the thicket" has stuck in my mind since reading her words. It does make some sense to me, and I, too, like you, appreciate that she doesn't stop at the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, but that there was the ram in the thicket. At least for me, it seems the Manifesto was the ram in the the thicket, and that does influence my opinion at least somewhat on the subject. Granted, I am always open to learning more (and hence the possibility of altering my thoughts on the subject.)I will be attending the FAIR conference this year, and can only attend one day - I (and my brother) chose the day of Hudson's presentation (A Reconciliation of Polygamy) - I think it will be interesting, and I look forward to having more things to ponder from what she will speak about.
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 The point of Abraham's sacrifice was not just that he was willing but that he was spared. The Lord supplied a ram.Interesting! If I'm not mistaken, I once read something from Parley P Pratt where he made this same comparison and specifically stated that, if the Saints were faithful, there would someday be a ram in the thicket for them. It makes sense to me...especially considering that Jacob seems to make it clear that monogamy is the 'default setting' for marriage.
mbh26 Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 I loved Valerie Hudson in class. She was such a sweetheart and a breath of fresh air in the ultracompetitive BYU academic scene. For me the ram in the thicket is simply being capable of being in more than one place at once.
Curtis Weber Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 The "way for [Joseph's] escape" in D&C 132:50 does not seem to refer to plural marriage. Rather, the "ram in the thicket" appears to be the withdrawal of the offer alluded to in v.51, which is a rather specific and undisclosed "offer" from the Lord to Emma, an offer that was designed to test both Joseph's and Emma's faith, as Abraham's faith was tested by the command to offer up Issac.D&C 132:50-51 does not appear to deal with plural marriage as a whole. I have not read Hudson's theory, but surely the Lord's invocation of the sacrifice of Isaac is not "directly used to explain the command to engage in plural marriage in D&C 132."
thesometimesaint Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) Curtis Weber:Depends on how many Mothers-in-Law you want. :rofl:Ps. Thou she is no longer with us. Sorry mom. Edited July 18, 2011 by thesometimesaint
T-Shirt Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) So long as there is one more woman than there are men in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, then, I suppose, it will be necessary, at least in that one case. If the numbers between genders are exactly equal, then it will be a moot point. The only way that polygamy can be required in eternity, is if there are more women than men who qualify for exaltation. I am fine with it, if that is the case, but until then, I have no way of knowing.T-Shirt Edited July 18, 2011 by T-Shirt
cinepro Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 So long as there is one more woman than there are men in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, then, I suppose, it will be necessary, at least in that one case. If the numbers between genders are exactly equal, then it will be a moot point. The only way that polygamy can be required in eternity, is if there are more women than men who qualify for exaltation. I am fine with it, if that is the case, but until then, I have no way of knowing.T-ShirtSo what happens if more men than women make it?
fatherofone Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 So what happens if more men than women make it?lol not likely, men are too stubborn
T-Shirt Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 (edited) So what happens if more men than women make it?Then, I suppose, some women will have multiple husbands. It doesn't matter much to me either way. I am content to wait and see what happens.T-Shirt Edited July 18, 2011 by T-Shirt
cinepro Posted July 18, 2011 Posted July 18, 2011 lol not likely, men are too stubbornI suspect most denizens of the Celestial Kingdom will be there because they died before the age of accountability, and not because of any personality traits or choices they made while living on Earth. So it will be the gender statistics on infant mortality that will be of critical importance. 2
baddonkey Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 If polygamy were an eternal principle then the Church would be living it now. It seems to be temporary by its very nature since it has been discontinued in practice and belief and even in teaching.
Deborah Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 If polygamy were an eternal principle then the Church would be living it now. It seems to be temporary by its very nature since it has been discontinued in practice and belief and even in teaching.Not so. A man can still be sealed to more than one wife if his spouse is deceased which certainly shows that it is still in practice but not for living spouses. If it were not an eternal principle than all those previously sealed to multiple wives would not have those sealings in the next life.
LeSellers Posted July 21, 2011 Posted July 21, 2011 If polygamy were an eternal principle then the Church would be living it now.Your assumption is just that, an assumption. It has no basis in reality. It seems to be temporary by its very nature since it has been discontinued in practice and belief and even in teaching.We don't teach it because there's no practical reason to; as you said, we do not practice it now. That does not make it "temporary". It makes it "suspended". Lehi
katherine the great Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 Could it be possible that the different races and genetic diversity that we see in this world are the result of different Heavenly Mothers from the same Heavanly Father? No. We needn't look beyond our own human genepool to explain human diversity.
katherine the great Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 I am asking this of active believing LDS. It is not for the purpose of arguing any position.I would be interested in hearing from those who believe that worthy men will have more than one wife in the Celestial Kingdom and what leads you to this conclusion.I can't really tell from the post but are you interested in hearing from active believing LDS who do not believe it? I believe that God created Adam and Eve as a full human being--male and female. One male and one female. I think that is the ideal that God teaches us and I think polygamy generally interferes with this. Now, I had ancestors who practiced polygamy in my LDS line, and they were fine, decent, hard working people--the salt of the earth. I think they will be blessed for trying to live their religion to the best of their abilities. I think God is far more tolerant of every cultural oddity common to our human race than most of us can begin to comprehend. As to whether or not those good people will be able to keep all of their spouses in the afterlife, I assume the answer is yes, in some form or other, but I can't speculate what that arrangement will be in the eternities.
KevinG Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 So what happens if more men than women make it?Toss me a rib and I'll fix that for ya!
KevinG Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 If polygamy were an eternal principle then the Church would be living it now. It seems to be temporary by its very nature since it has been discontinued in practice and belief and even in teaching.Lemme just rip those pages out of my scriptures.
mbh26 Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 You know it's funny because every blasted time someone finds out I speak Spanish it leads to questions about polygamy. I wondered how the Church would like me to answer the question if they had their way. Perhaps what they would like me to say is, "No it's no longer practiced and anyone who practices it or speaks in favor of practicing it in Church is excommunicated." But even if the diplomatic way to answer it is to say what I quoted above, I find that statement misleading because you really do have to rip the pages out of the scripture to say it's not an eternal principle. I include the fact that polygamy is still practiced post mortem. I think that's more fair and honest. I think it very likely that as spirit siblings, we have different Heavenly Mothers. That's the only thing that would make sense to me.
thesometimesaint Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 baddonkey:Funny my Scripture still include Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Men can still be Sealed to more than one wife, as long as she is dead.
Recommended Posts