Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 We may have all known each other in the pre-existence and a lot better than we know here. I have my doubts we even know people here in mortality rather than just knowing the construct we have made of them. I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't expressed a fundamental misunderstanding of how I view myself not matter how long and how close I am and I am certain I am clueless in some way about eveyone else in life. Maybe those couples who get to know each other as a couple in the eternities luck out by avoiding all the misunderstandings that occur in mortality between people and even end up developing their relationship faster because they don't have to figure out all the misconceptions. Of course they miss out on some of the benefits of companionship as well, but I won't be surprised if the pros and cons work out to be pretty balanced given other things are equal. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 8 minutes ago, Calm said: We may have all known each other in the pre-existence and a lot better than we know here. I have my doubts we even know people here in mortality rather than just knowing the construct we have made of them. I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't expressed a fundamental misunderstanding of how I view myself not matter how long and how close I am and I am certain I am clueless in some way about eveyone else in life. Maybe those couples who get to know each other as a couple in the eternities luck out by avoiding all the misunderstandings that occur in mortality between people and even end up developing their relationship faster because they don't have to figure out all the misconceptions. Of course they miss out on some of the benefits of companionship as well, but I won't be surprised if the pros and cons work out to be pretty balanced given other things are equal. It just seems odd in a way. Will Wilford Woodruff be a husband to the 400 ancestors he had sealed to him as wives, or will things be organized during the Millennium and straighten everything out?
JLHPROF Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: It just seems odd in a way. Will Wilford Woodruff be a husband to the 400 ancestors he had sealed to him as wives, or will things be organized during the Millennium and straighten everything out? Both are viable options. The Millennium is going to be a lot of fixing of incorrect family sealings. But that doesn't mean President Woodruff's sealings are among them.
VideoGameJunkie Posted March 31, 2016 Author Posted March 31, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Both are viable options. The Millennium is going to be a lot of fixing of incorrect family sealings. But that doesn't mean President Woodruff's sealings are among them. Personally, I absolutely can't wait for the Millennium, but I don't want to deal with all the disasters that are supposed to happen before the 2nd Coming. But it will be nice to have everything sorted out and run by Jesus Christ to make all things right for eternity.
Calm Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) 37 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: It just seems odd in a way. Will Wilford Woodruff be a husband to the 400 ancestors he had sealed to him as wives, or will things be organized during the Millennium and straighten everything out? I lean more to the latter as I don't see the same need in eternity that they saw at the time of the sealing (they saw the need for the women to be sealed and did it in the best way they knew how out of compassion imo from what I have read). Edited March 31, 2016 by Calm 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 1, 2016 Author Posted April 1, 2016 It just seemed odd though sealing 2 people together as husband and wife who never knew each other. Wheres the love or do sealings trump love?
The Nehor Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 31 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: It just seemed odd though sealing 2 people together as husband and wife who never knew each other. Wheres the love or do sealings trump love? I love people I have never met.
Robert F. Smith Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 10 hours ago, ALarson said: There was offspring for Heber C. Kimball and Sarah Noon (who was civilly married to another man, but separated). I'd need to look up and see if they were sealed for time and eternity...or time only. There was also offspring from Brigham Young's marriages/sealings that involved women who were civilly married to other men (Zina Huntington for one...but there were others, iirc). I know some were sealings for time, but there were those he was sealed to for eternity as well, that he had offspring with if I'm remembering correctly here. So does this mean that these men were actively engaged in polyandry (sharing the same woman within the same period of time)? Or were these serial marriages under different rubrics/headings? As far as with Joseph Smith's sealing to women who were already civilly married, we don't know if there was any offspring yet. Sylvia Session Lyon stated that her daughter Josephine was Joseph's daughter but I think the DNA testing is still ongoing there. Thus far, none of the supposed children of Joseph by women other than Emma have his DNA, and extensive testing has already been conducted. I welcome more of the same. I looked up Heber and Sarah's sealing and it was for time only. She was sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity (which means that Sarah's and Heber's children are Joseph's in the eternities). So, it appears that it was acceptable for those men sealed for time only or for time and eternity to women who were civilly married to other men, to have marital relations with these women (even prior to Joseph's death, as he most likely was aware of the children born from these unions). I believe Joseph was sealed to at least most of the already married women for eternity only though (iirc, he was sealed to 3 of them for time and eternity). .
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 1, 2016 Author Posted April 1, 2016 Is it right for people who don't love each other to be sealed together as husband and wife for eternity? Especially if they've never met. I thought love is why we get sealed, but actions seem to show back then they didn't show love to make their most important ceremonies.
JLHPROF Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 31 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Is it right for people who don't love each other to be sealed together as husband and wife for eternity? Especially if they've never met. I thought love is why we get sealed, but actions seem to show back then they didn't show love to make their most important ceremonies. How about these teachings? “Brigham Young said Joseph taught that when a woman‘s affections was entirely weaned from her husband that was Adultery in spirit. Her Affections were Adulterated from his. He also said that there was No law in Heaven or on Earth that would Compel a woman to stay with a man either in time or Eternity. This I think is true (but I do not know) that if a man that is a High priest takes a woman & she leaves him & goes to one of a lesser office say the Lesser priesthood or member I think in the resurrection that that High Priest Can Claim her. Joseph [Young]. What if she should not want to go with him? I should not want a woman under those Circumstances. Brigham [Young]. I will tell you what you will find. That all those evil traditions & affections or passions that Haunt the mind in this life will all be done away in the resurrection. You will find then that any man who gets a glory & exaltation will be so beautiful that any woman will be willing to have him if it was right & wherever it is right for the woman to go there she will be willing to go for all those evils will vanish to which we are subject in this life. I have told the people the truth just as it is but others will at times get up & tell the people that they will get no heaven only what they make in this life and that it will be in the next world as it is in this. Now they do not mean what they say. They do not explain themselves. Hence the people will not understand what is said to them.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 56, May 2, 1857). 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 1, 2016 Author Posted April 1, 2016 To me it seems like love wasn't that important to the early saints while I think love should be the main and only reason for a sealing of husband and wife. Not just so you can be sealed to a dead prophet who doesn't love you, and not to be sealed to 11 women who already have husbands and don't love you. And if you're married to 33 or 55 women like the first 2 prophets, I wonder how many had to do with love. I can see the proposal now. I love you so much that you get to be wife number 54 to me. I can only spend 1 week a year with you as I have 53 other wives to spend a week a year with, but aren't you just so happy?
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 1, 2016 Author Posted April 1, 2016 Maybe I'm just a big sap for love stories and eternal relationships will be different and love in the resurrection will be different.
Calm Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 There are different forms of love. Romantic love if that is all there is...relationship isn't going to make it through the hard parts of life imo. Loving someone as a companion or even more importantly as another child of God, that provides a lot of stability imo. Good relationships are multilayered and may develop in very different ways at different times of life. The key is to keep developing and don't stagnant. For those that weren't romantically in love with their spouse, what fun they will have developing that part of the relationship when they are both celestial beings.
Calm Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: "This I think is true (but I do not know) .” Key phrase, imo. 1
JLHPROF Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 1 minute ago, Calm said: Key phrase, imo. Agreed, but he is only applying that to one of the four doctrines I underlined. We assume that he doesn't know for sure on the other three.
Calm Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 My only real problem is with the one he is speculating about. Given the idea of eternal progression combined with exaltation I don't see a need for any woman to go hopping to a different husband solely because at one moment in time/eternity he has a higher priesthood than her current husband. 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted April 1, 2016 Author Posted April 1, 2016 1 hour ago, Calm said: My only real problem is with the one he is speculating about. Given the idea of eternal progression combined with exaltation I don't see a need for any woman to go hopping to a different husband solely because at one moment in time/eternity he has a higher priesthood than her current husband. I agree. I hope no girl would ditch me in the eternities for a celebrity priesthood holder. Crap I've been dumped for Lorenzo Snow. It must be the beard.
Keq82 Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 I personally don't think it was/is tolerated at all. I think early leaders of the church abused their positions of power to steal other men's wives and engage in unbecoming, promiscuous behavior. *No CFR required--this is my personal opinion. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 2 hours ago, Keq82 said: I personally don't think it was/is tolerated at all. I think early leaders of the church abused their positions of power to steal other men's wives and engage in unbecoming, promiscuous behavior. *No CFR required--this is my personal opinion. That and $5 you can buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 15 hours ago, Calm said: We may have all known each other in the pre-existence and a lot better than we know here. I have my doubts we even know people here in mortality rather than just knowing the construct we have made of them. I have yet to meet anyone who hasn't expressed a fundamental misunderstanding of how I view myself not matter how long and how close I am and I am certain I am clueless in some way about eveyone else in life. Maybe those couples who get to know each other as a couple in the eternities luck out by avoiding all the misunderstandings that occur in mortality between people and even end up developing their relationship faster because they don't have to figure out all the misconceptions. Of course they miss out on some of the benefits of companionship as well, but I won't be surprised if the pros and cons work out to be pretty balanced given other things are equal. I wonder if Paul's statement about seeing through a glass darkly has bearing here. 1
ALarson Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: So does this mean that these men were actively engaged in polyandry (sharing the same woman within the same period of time)? It would be the women who were living polyandry (if any were). My response was regarding any offspring for sealings that involved women who were already civilly married to another man before the sealing. There was offspring from these marriages. 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Thus far, none of the supposed children of Joseph by women other than Emma have his DNA, and extensive testing has already been conducted. I welcome more of the same. I don't really care too much one way or the other, however it'll be interesting to see regarding Josephine Sessions Lyon. But, we simply do not know if Joseph had any offspring from his plural marriages (and we may never know). I know so far, the tests have been negative, but the results weren't released for Josephine Sessions Lyon and the family members are now paying to have it done (by the same geneticist). We'll just have to wait and see if and when those results are released. But I'm not one who believes "no children means no marital relations" as it's naive to believe Joseph didn't have relations with at least some of his plural wives.
JLHPROF Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 59 minutes ago, ALarson said: But I'm not one who believes "no children means no marital relations" as it's naive to believe Joseph didn't have relations with at least some of his plural wives. I think it's hilarious that we care whether a husband had relations with women that: 1. He considered his wives 2. Considered themselves his wives 3. The Church consider his wives 4. Historians consider his wives News alert, news alert, husband and wife have relations... 1
ALarson Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I think it's hilarious that we care whether a husband had relations with women that: 1. He considered his wives 2. Considered themselves his wives 3. The Church consider his wives 4. Historians consider his wives News alert, news alert, husband and wife have relations... I agree! But some seem to want to believe that Joseph Smith lived the principle of plural marriage differently than the other men and Prophets did. The "no children must mean no consummation" argument gets old and is pretty ridiculous, IMO. There are numerous reasons why Joseph may not have had any children with his plural wives. Edited April 1, 2016 by ALarson
thesometimesaint Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 17 minutes ago, ALarson said: I agree! But some seem to want to believe that Joseph Smith lived the principle of plural marriage differently than the other men and Prophets did. The "no children must mean no consummation" argument gets old and is pretty ridiculous, IMO. There are numerous reasons why Joseph may not have had any children with his plural wives. I've never claimed that "no children must mean no consummation". Unfortunately that can be stretched to beyond that which is logical.
JLHPROF Posted April 1, 2016 Posted April 1, 2016 32 minutes ago, ALarson said: I agree! But some seem to want to believe that Joseph Smith lived the principle of plural marriage differently than the other men and Prophets did. The "no children must mean no consummation" argument gets old and is pretty ridiculous, IMO. There are numerous reasons why Joseph may not have had any children with his plural wives. And yet this comes up again and again. There may be elements of Joseph's plural marriages that cause people to question (the same old two dead horses apparently). Whether or not he as the husband had relations with his wives should not even be on the list. 1
Recommended Posts