inquiringmind Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 Must a man be sealed to more than one wife (in this life, or in the spirit world) to reach his highest exaltation?The last time I read D&C 132 it seemed to say that this was necessary (and even though polygamy is no longer practiced in this life, it's still possible to be sealed for eternity to more than one wife.)My question is, is it still necessary???
frankenstein Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 I have wondered the same thing. from section 132, it seems that prior to 1890 the new and everlasting covenant was understood to be plural marriage, after the year 1890, it seems the new and everlasting covenant is at least one Temple Sealing.
Deborah Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 May I refer you to this excellent talk by Valerie Hudson at the Fair Conference. Here is a summary polygamy
zerinus Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 Must a man be sealed to more than one wife (in this life, or in the spirit world) to reach his highest exaltation?The short answer is No.The last time I read D&C 132 it seemed to say that this was necessary (and even though polygamy is no longer practiced in this life, it's still possible to be sealed for eternity to more than one wife.)My question is, is it still necessary???The answer was No then, and is No now.
mfbukowski Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 Must a man be sealed to more than one wife (in this life, or in the spirit world) to reach his highest exaltation?The last time I read D&C 132 it seemed to say that this was necessary (and even though polygamy is no longer practiced in this life, it's still possible to be sealed for eternity to more than one wife.)My question is, is it still necessary???No, never was necessary.
firepatch36 Posted August 7, 2011 Posted August 7, 2011 Eugene England wrote a piece I liked on it.On Fidelity, Polygamy, and Celestial Marriage,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20/4 (Winter 1987): 138-54He argues that there is no polygamy in heaven.
Calm Posted August 8, 2011 Posted August 8, 2011 (edited) I have wondered the same thing. from section 132, it seems that prior to 1890 the new and everlasting covenant was understood to be plural marriage, after the year 1890, it seems the new and everlasting covenant is at least one Temple Sealing.Brigham Young, IIRC, described the New and Everlasting Covenant as baptism and all that follows it* at least in one comment that I've read so I would disagree with you on what the understanding of the N&EC was, though plural marriage might have been understood as the N&EC of Marriage. OTOH, BY also spoke of being obedient to the principle in the sense of accepting it as a commandment of God to specific individuals, but not necessarily as having to participate it oneself so it would seem to me that even from the beginning there was an understanding that a monogamous marriage could be a part of the New and Everlasting as well as long as the participants were obedient in the commandments given to them.New and Everlasting Covenant: http://lds.org/scrip...venant?lang=eng*it's in the scriptures as well: D&C 66:2 Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine aeverlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have blife and be made cpartakers of the dglories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old.All Latter-day Saints enter the new and everlasting covenant when they enter this Church. They covenant to cease sustaining, upholding and cherishing the kingdom of the Devil and the kingdoms of this world. They enter the new and everlasting covenant to sustain the Kingdom of God and no other kingdom. They take a vow of the most solemn kind, before the heavens and earth, and that, too, upon the validity of their own salvation, that they will sustain truth and righteousness instead of wickedness and falsehood, and build up the Kingdom of God, instead of the kingdoms of this world (DBY, 160).http://lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-brigham-young/chapter-9-repentance-and-baptism?lang=eng Edited August 8, 2011 by calmoriah
cinepro Posted August 9, 2011 Posted August 9, 2011 I have wondered the same thing. from section 132, it seems that prior to 1890 the new and everlasting covenant was understood to be plural marriage, after the year 1890, it seems the new and everlasting covenant is at least one Temple Sealing.You need to use the full title that is used in the scriptures and say "The new and everlasting covenant of marriage", otherwise Calmoriah gets confused.
David T Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 See Brown and Stapley's papers on Adoption Theology and Ritual in early Mormonism -There was a period where Polygamy was viewed as being a directly practical aspect of Exaltation. The developing (and then radically readjusted) concept was that one's Kingdom in the eternities would be one's sealed posterity. If I had three children, my kingdom would be three children. However, if those children were each sealed as Kings and Priests and had their own kingdoms, then their kingdom would be part and parcel of your own domain. One would not be the king over three Kingdoms, not just three subjects. Hence, as one's eternal family grew, one's sphere of exaltation would also grow. The more wives, the more potential children, the more potential Kingdoms.I highly suggest the papers (especially Stapley's) to see this process exhaustively laid down, and then peeled back to setting the ground for the standard 'Eternal Nuclear Family' concept that is popular in the Church today.
ERayR Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) May I refer you to this excellent talk by Valerie Hudson at the Fair Conference. Here is a summary polygamyI listened to her presentation and thought that some of it was good. However, it seemed her own dislike for polygamy led her to conclusions that to me were a stretch.In answer to the OP my answer would be no. Edited August 10, 2011 by ERayR
KevinG Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 Looking at Brother Brigham's comments to the Saints drew me to the conclusion that if God commands us to do something it is a requirement for our exaltation. The specifics of those requirements may differ from person to person and time to time (for example when Brigham said God would condemn those not practicing the principle he was addressing specific people under the conditions of its practice).The broader issue is not that polygamy is required or not required, it is that a commandment of God must be followed to receive the blessings attached to obedience to said commandment.The Saints today are not practicing polygamy, commanded not to practice it, therefore it is not a requirement for our exaltation (at least not the practice of it in this life). 1
Thinking Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 "Thus you see that the very moment we admit the eternity of marriage, the very moment that we admit that Adam and Eve were immortal beings, when they were married, and we undertake to follow that pattern, plurality necessarily comes along; either marriage has no bearing upon eternity, and no bearing upon immortality and immortal beings, or else plurality of wives necessarily must exist in eternity." (Orson Pratt, JoD Vol. 18 p.55)
Maidservant Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 It seems to me that no adult, celestial being would waste one single nano-second of eternity "ruling" another adult, celestial being whether married to them or parenting them. Each would rule themselves, the result of having overcome.Thus the idea of kingdom is a pattern that has nothing to do with ruling. Thus if polygamy is necessary or even going to happen at all, it would not be for the purpose of any kind of dynasty (as I think many now realize).The ordinances that are done are signs and tokens for the reality we are creating. They are for the purpose of binding our hearts into one as husbands and wives, parents and children, churches, communities and a world, including our past ancestors and our future posterity. I would venture to say that a necessary celestial marriage would not be dependent on the number of partners involved (of any gender) but rather the condition of being One with each other. If that is possible only with a binary couple, or possible with multiple partners . . . I don't know.
ERayR Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 It seems to me that no adult, celestial being would waste one single nano-second of eternity "ruling" another adult, celestial being whether married to them or parenting them. Each would rule themselves, the result of having overcome.Thus the idea of kingdom is a pattern that has nothing to do with ruling. Thus if polygamy is necessary or even going to happen at all, it would not be for the purpose of any kind of dynasty (as I think many now realize).The ordinances that are done are signs and tokens for the reality we are creating. They are for the purpose of binding our hearts into one as husbands and wives, parents and children, churches, communities and a world, including our past ancestors and our future posterity. I would venture to say that a necessary celestial marriage would not be dependent on the number of partners involved (of any gender) but rather the condition of being One with each other. If that is possible only with a binary couple, or possible with multiple partners . . . I don't know.I take it then that God does not rule in your life?
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 It seems to me that no adult, celestial being would waste one single nano-second of eternity "ruling" another adult, celestial being whether married to them or parenting them. Each would rule themselves, the result of having overcome.Thus the idea of kingdom is a pattern that has nothing to do with ruling. Thus if polygamy is necessary or even going to happen at all, it would not be for the purpose of any kind of dynasty (as I think many now realize).The ordinances that are done are signs and tokens for the reality we are creating. They are for the purpose of binding our hearts into one as husbands and wives, parents and children, churches, communities and a world, including our past ancestors and our future posterity. I would venture to say that a necessary celestial marriage would not be dependent on the number of partners involved (of any gender) but rather the condition of being One with each other. If that is possible only with a binary couple, or possible with multiple partners . . . I don't know.I agree with everything except that phrase "of any gender".Consider the possibility that the whole object is the unity of opposites- yin and yang if you will- the self becoming one with an "other" complimentary person with different talents, needs, strengths and weaknesses than ourselves. To me, that means male and female.But of course we don't want to turn this into a SSM thread. We could always go to PM if you want to continue along that line.
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 I take it then that God does not rule in your life?HmmmmDunno. I took that to mean something like "unrighteous dominion" but of course maybe you are right.
LeSellers Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 Consider the possibility that the whole object is the unity of opposites- yin and yang if you will- the self becoming one with an "other" complimentary person with different talents, needs, strengths and weaknesses than ourselves. To me, that means male and female.I really do not like the phrase "opposite sex" (or any of its derivatives). As I see it, the proper terminology would be "complementary sex". Male completes female, and female completes male. We are not "opposites", we are "complements", in every sense. Lehi 1
K-2 Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 See Brown and Stapley's papers on Adoption Theology and Ritual in early Mormonism -There was a period where Polygamy was viewed as being a directly practical aspect of Exaltation. The developing (and then radically readjusted) concept was that one's Kingdom in the eternities would be one's sealed posterity. If I had three children, my kingdom would be three children. However, if those children were each sealed as Kings and Priests and had their own kingdoms, then their kingdom would be part and parcel of your own domain. One would not be the king over three Kingdoms, not just three subjects. Hence, as one's eternal family grew, one's sphere of exaltation would also grow. The more wives, the more potential children, the more potential Kingdoms.I highly suggest the papers (especially Stapley's) to see this process exhaustively laid down, and then peeled back to setting the ground for the standard 'Eternal Nuclear Family' concept that is popular in the Church today.It seems to me like you're saying here that the present 'Eternal Nuclear Family' concept has been radically adjusted and no longer includes the idea that "one's Kingdom in the eternities would be one's sealed posterity", whereas I thought it still included that idea. I read Stapley's article, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
Thinking Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 I really do not like the phrase "opposite sex" (or any of its derivatives). As I see it, the proper terminology would be "complementary sex". Male completes female, and female completes male. We are not "opposites", we are "complements", in every sense. LehiEvery once in a while we agree on something. You are one of the few who understands that complementary is not the same as complimentary. Although it is always a good idea to compliment your complement.
cinepro Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 Looking at Brother Brigham's comments to the Saints drew me to the conclusion that if God commands us to do something it is a requirement for our exaltation. The specifics of those requirements may differ from person to person and time to time (for example when Brigham said God would condemn those not practicing the principle he was addressing specific people under the conditions of its practice).Keep in mind that even in the most zealous parts of Pioneer Utah, not everyone practiced polygamy. From what I've heard, it was considered "optional" (and sometimes not allowed) for regular members, encouraged for Bishops, strongly encouraged for Stake Presidents, and really strongly encouraged for Apostles and general authorities. But some people just didn't want to do it and they didn't, but they didn't consider their exaltation at risk.And polygamy wasn't uniformly practiced from 1853-1890. It peaked during the "reformation" period when it was most strongly encouraged (1856-1858), and then declined in popularity and practice in the following decades. I've even heard it argued that even if the manifesto hadn't come along in 1890, it would have died out within a generation or two because fewer and fewer people wanted to practice it. For those who are interested, these issues are discussed in great detail in Kathyrn Daynes' excellent book "More Wives Than One"
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 I really do not like the phrase "opposite sex" (or any of its derivatives). As I see it, the proper terminology would be "complementary sex". Male completes female, and female completes male. We are not "opposites", we are "complements", in every sense. LehiAbsolutely!
Maidservant Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 (edited) I take it then that God does not rule in your life?Of course not. He is my father. I don't experience that as ruling. In him, I am free, not ruled. Although granted there may be other definitions or nuances of ruling (and I think that there are). Edited August 11, 2011 by Maidservant
Maidservant Posted August 11, 2011 Posted August 11, 2011 I agree with everything except that phrase "of any gender".Consider the possibility that the whole object is the unity of opposites- yin and yang if you will- the self becoming one with an "other" complimentary person with different talents, needs, strengths and weaknesses than ourselves. To me, that means male and female.But of course we don't want to turn this into a SSM thread. We could always go to PM if you want to continue along that line.I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. I meant polyandry in this instance. At this time I also believe that celestiality cannot be maintained with same sex, sexual relationships. But I know better than to be certain about anything . . . only to listen.
Recommended Posts