Alan Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Polygamy is going to be a big part of Celestial society, or else eternal marriage counts for nothing. And that's NOT speculation. That IS speculation my friend. It absolutely is.Personally, I would argue that plural marriage will not exist in the celestial kingdom in any way shape or form.
JLHPROF Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 (edited) That IS speculation my friend. It absolutely is.Personally, I would argue that plural marriage will not exist in the celestial kingdom in any way shape or form. Then you don't believe in eternal marriage sealings either. Because you can't have it both ways. If I am sealed to my wife for eternity then I will be with her in the Celestial Kingdom (hopefully).If Joseph Fielding Smith was sealed to his three wives for eternity then they will be in the Celestial Kingdom with him (probably).If I meet Joseph Fielding Smith in the Celestial Kingdom I will be a monogamist there and he will be a polygamist there.There will be polygamists in that society unless you don't believe in eternal marriage. I don't see how that is speculative at all. Edited September 13, 2014 by JLHPROF
Alan Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Then you don't believe in eternal marriage sealings either. Because you can't have it both ways. If I am sealed to my wife for eternity then I will be with her in the Celestial Kingdom (hopefully).If Joseph Fielding Smith was sealed to his three wives for eternity then they will be in the Celestial Kingdom with him (probably).If I meet Joseph Fielding Smith in the Celestial Kingdom I will be a monogamist there and he will be a polygamist there.There will be polygamists in that society unless you don't believe in eternal marriage. I don't see how that is speculative at all. I don't think it is worth discussing this with you as we are not going to agree.Your view seems to me to be rather simplistic but that obviously works for you; and that's fine.
JLHPROF Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 I don't think it is worth discussing this with you as we are not going to agree.Your view seems to me to be rather simplistic but that obviously works for you; and that's fine. Fair enough. Sometimes I really can't believe the orthodox teachings I have to defend on this board ( or why I bother really).But healthy debate IS fun.
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 (edited) That IS speculation my friend. It absolutely is.Personally, I would argue that plural marriage will not exist in the celestial kingdom in any way shape or form. Why is Polygamy wrong? The only reason it is wrong is because God does not approve it, but if God approves it in the future, would it be wrong? People don't like polygamy because it is a cultural opinion, do you have any evidence that it is harmful?Anti-Mormons persecuted the early Saints because they were bigots. Edited September 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Why is Polygamy wrong? The only reason it is wrong is because God does not approve it, but if God approves it in the future, would it be wrong? People don't like polygamy because it is a cultural opinion, do you have any evidence that it is harmful?Anti-Mormons persecuted the early Saints because they were bigots. As non-Mormon church historian Ernst Benz wrote: Mormon polygamy has nothing to do with sexual debauchery but is tied to a strict patriarchal system of family order and demonstrates in the relationship of the husband to his individual wives all the ethical traits of a Christian, monogamous marriage. It is completely focused on bearing children and rearing them in the bosom of the family and the Mormon community. Actually, it exhibits a very great measure of selflessness, a willingness to sacrifice, and a sense of duty.http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Lustful_motives 1
SamIam Posted September 21, 2014 Posted September 21, 2014 (edited) Edited September 22, 2014 by SamIam
Tacenda Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 http://www.fairmormonsupport.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=970 Saw this on Fairmormon.org today. Under the Navigating Church History, Doctrine, Culture, Practice, and Practice topic. I find it interesting how so many believers don't align on this specific doctrine. To those that don't believe they'll live polygamy in the CK, can you justify it when reading section 132 and how do you justify it? If you read the post below it concludes that the New and Ever Lasting covenant is to live polygamy. webdoc » Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:32 pmIn D&C 66:2, the Lord seems to make it clear that "the fulness of my gospel" is synonymous with "mine everlasting covenant". In context, the Lord specifies why William E. McLellin is being blessed, "blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel". If the "everlasting covenant" and the "fulness of my gospel" are the same, and if the "everlasting covenant" referred to here and the "new and an everlasting covenant" from Section 132:4 are the same (which I believe them to be), and if Joseph Smith had evidence of the truthfulness of Celestial and Plural Marriage as early as 1831 (see Section 132's heading), then several thoughts come to mind.1. The phrase "blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant" is slightly ambiguous. Either McLellin had already received the everlasting covenant and fulness of the Lord's gospel and was being blessed for something he had already done or he was being blessed for something he was in the process of doing.2. Since McLellin had not (to my knowledge) been taught of Plural Marriage (the phrase "Celestial Marriage" does not exist in scripture), it seems more likely that he was being blessed for something he was in the process of doing. He had not yet received the entire blessing because he had not yet received the entire law. If the fulness of the gospel and the new and everlasting covenant include Plural Marriage, which Section 132 makes a very good case for, then McLellin could not receive the blessings from obeying the "principle and doctrine of... having many wives and concubines" (132:1) without actually receiving and obeying it (see 132:3 and 130:20).So if the Lord had not yet formally revealed to His Church the "principle and doctrine" of plural marriage, and had not revealed it to McLellin personally, then it seems that McLellin was not being blessed for having already received what the Lord termed the "everlasting covenant" (at least the reference to this covenant in Section 66) but rather he was being blessed for what he was in the process of receiving both the "everlasting covenant" (and therefore the "fulness of the gospel") which was not then complete.Interestingly, the Lord says that those "who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles...have broken mine everlasting covenant" (D&C 1:14-15). In these verses, it seems that it is possible for those who have never been baptized, as well as those that have, to break the "everlasting covenant". I don't think it's possible to break a covenant that hasn't been entered into, so I'm not sure how this aspect of the "everlasting covenant" fits in either.Another reference to the "everlasting covenant" appears in Hebrews 13:20-21 doesn't seem to help much. "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." The "everlasting covenant" is herein mentioned as having relation to "blood." Just exactly what the "blood of the everlasting covenant" is, or what exactly the "everlasting covenant" is that has blood, or if the "everlasting covenant" mentioned here is the same as throughout the D&C is unclear to me at this point.As I'm reading, I'm just finding more questions myself.But since I'm sure I've been clear as mud, I'll summarize. I think that the "everlasting covenant" is the same thing as the "new and an everlasting covenant" and that these terms are additionally synonymous to and with the "fulness of my gospel" and that they (it) include(s) the "principle and doctrine of... having many wives and concubines", which is part of what is taught today to be "Celestial Marriage."
USU78 Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 But since I'm sure I've been clear as mud, I'll summarize. I think that the "everlasting covenant" is the same thing as the "new and an everlasting covenant" and that these terms are additionally synonymous to and with the "fulness of my gospel" and that they (it) include(s) the "principle and doctrine of... having many wives and concubines", which is part of what is taught today to be "Celestial Marriage." I don't think anybody would argue that the earliest recipients of the sacrament of the sealing of couples for time and eternity believed that that concept was not synonymous with polygyny: they were taught at the same time and nobody bothered to consider whether the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" was something different than The Principle of polygyny. It was The Principle that people died for in their own minds, but that which motivated the killers was the reintroduction of the "new and everlasting covenant of marriage" and the sprouting up of temples in which those covenants could be solemnified. The Enemy understood the difference and the significance and motivated those inclined to do so to put it down in blood and horror.
JLHPROF Posted September 24, 2014 Posted September 24, 2014 But since I'm sure I've been clear as mud, I'll summarize. I think that the "everlasting covenant" is the same thing as the "new and an everlasting covenant" and that these terms are additionally synonymous to and with the "fulness of my gospel" and that they (it) include(s) the "principle and doctrine of... having many wives and concubines", which is part of what is taught today to be "Celestial Marriage." The Everlasting Covenant can refer to any number of covenants:- Genesis 9:9-17 - The covenant made between God (and all flesh/Noah) not to destroy the earth by flood again.- Genesis 17: - The covenant between God and Abraham/his descendants- Leviticus 24:8 - A covenant between God and Israel to provide offerings- 2nd Samuel 23:5 - A covenant between God and David concerning his house. Generally it refers to the covenant made between God and his people (Israel) or the Mosaic Laws. But there are many more everlasting covenants. The New and Everlasting Covenant refers to the covenant that replaced/supplanted the Mosaic Law, that is, the covenant Christ made with us to be our Savior and pay for our sins and all the related ordinances. Marriage is one of those ordinances (like baptism).Early in Church history there is no doubt that people believed the fullness of marriage contained in that covenant referred to plural marriage. It was re-defined as eternal marriage sometime around Pres. Grant if I recall correctly.It's also important to remember that when we are married in the temple (the exalting ordinance) we are put under covenant to live all the ordinances of marriage. I always wondered what those referred to if we already getting married. To me the bigger question should be "is Plural Marriage a higher law of marriage than monogamy"? If so, then to continue our eternal progression in heaven would involve entering plural marriage if we didn't here. So that's my question - Even if it's been revoked in our day in the grand scheme is plural marriage a progression beyond monogamy?
Recommended Posts