re polygamy

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Mormon doctrine says Exaltation requires marriage.  And only Mormon Doctrine. The MAJORITY of the other religious doctrine does not require marriage for the highest heaven. Nor does the Bible.  Period.

Funny, I thought this was a Mormon doctrine discussion board.  Why do I care what other religions believe?  Majority doesn't rule.
And most other Christian religions reject any differentiation between salvation and exaltation anyway, so why would they have a belief in a requirement for exaltation?

 

Edited April 26, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Tacenda]

http://www.totheremnant.com/2015/11/are-you-calling-joseph-smith-liar.html

This is interesting, I wonder how many other members don't believe Joseph lived polygamy but that BY is the one that made it up, or even provided D&C 132!

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.totheremnant.com/2015/11/are-you-calling-joseph-smith-liar.html

This is interesting, I wonder how many other members don't believe Joseph lived polygamy but that BY is the one that made it up, or even provided D&C 132!

I was taught in early morning seminary that Joseph didn't live polygamy and Brigham Young made it up. My mom also told me Joseph never lived polygamy. I didn't believe until the church essay came out.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Funny, I thought this was a Mormon doctrine discussion board.  Why do I care what other religions believe?  Majority doesn't rule.
And most other Christian religions reject any differentiation between salvation and exaltation anyway, so why would they have a belief in a requirement for exaltation?

 

I figure one baseless a priori position is as good as another.

As for exaltation I thought Mormon apologists argue that theosis was part of Christianity in its first few hundred years.  

Yet the NT and the early church fathers say nothing about marriage, let alone plural marriage being required for theosis.

That teaching is uniquely Mormon and I have seen nothing in ancient religious teachings require it for God's highest reward.  This idea seems more innovation than restoration.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I figure one baseless a priori position is as good as another.

As for exaltation I thought Mormon apologists argue that theosis was part of Christianity in its first few hundred years.  

Yet the NT and the early church fathers say nothing about marriage, let alone plural marriage being required for theosis.

That teaching is uniquely Mormon and I have seen nothing in ancient religious teachings require it for God's highest reward.  This idea seems more innovation than restoration.

Again, you seem very concerned with what traditional Christianity has taught according to historians and traditional Christian sects.
I really don't care.  My religion is the one Joseph Smith revealed from heaven.  Any other religious thinking on plural marriage or theosis is meaningless to me.

In Mormonism theosis and plural marriage are doctrines (with varying degrees of acceptance among the membership).  That's good enough for me.  I have no interest in proving Mormonism using the lens of the early Church Fathers.  If Joseph Smith "innovated" every last word of Mormonism, I still accept his revelations as falling straight from the mind and will of God.  Your mileage obviously varies.

[Tacenda]

With permission from DBMormon, I c/p'd these rules and his comment after. They sure don't appear to have been followed by Joseph.

FOUR RULES OF POLYGAMY AS LAID OUT BY GOD
RULE #1 ( D&C 132 vs 61) The First Wife must Give her Consent

RULE #2 Second wife should be a virgin ( D&C 132 vs 61)

RULE #3 Additional Wives should be unmarried prior to plural marriage ( D&C 132 vs 61)

RULE #4 Purpose to multiply and replenish the earth ( D&C 132 vs 63)

The problem is Joseph seems to break three of these and not fulfill the 4th. What are we to make of this? I know apologists throw some crazy mental gymnastics at this but it doesn't hold water. Was Joseph wrong or did God make him the exception to the rules? If he was wrong what does that mean for us?

Edited April 27, 2016 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

With permission from DBMormon, I c/p'd these rules and his comment after. They sure don't appear to have been followed by Joseph.

FOUR RULES OF POLYGAMY AS LAID OUT BY GOD
RULE #1 ( D&C 132 vs 61) The First Wife must Give her Consent

Unless she is taught the law and chooses to reject it (Vs 52, 64-65)

RULE #2 Second wife should be a virgin ( D&C 132 vs 61)
RULE #3 Additional Wives should be unmarried prior to plural marriage ( D&C 132 vs 61)

Subject to interpretation of both "married" and "virgin".  Virgin can refer to purity and worthiness, not just never had sex.  And none of Joseph's wives had been married by God's authority prior to marrying him (well, MAYBE one).

RULE #4 Purpose to multiply and replenish the earth ( D&C 132 vs 63)

Purely an issue of circumstance.  Such a silly objection.  Do we think he was using birth control?

The problem is Joseph seems to break three of these and not fulfill the 4th. What are we to make of this? I know apologists throw some crazy mental gymnastics at this but it doesn't hold water. Was Joseph wrong or did God make him the exception to the rules? If he was wrong what does that mean for us?

No, Joseph wasn't wrong and broke none of the commands of God.

 

[Tacenda]

Woah JLHPROF...you're very good at obfuscations when it comes to defending these broken rules.  Wow! 

to make obscure or unclear:

to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by Tacenda

[VideoGameJunkie]

LDS Scriptures & Revelations

“And in order to obtain the highest [degree in celestial glory – see v. 1], a man must enter into this order of the Priesthood (meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage); And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.” (Instructions of Joseph Smith, 16 May 1843, D&C 131:2-3)

“for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. For behold I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” (Revelation to Joseph Smith, 12 July 1843, D&C 132:3-4, see v. 6,21,27,32)

“And I say again: Wo unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham which leadeth to a celestial glory ...” (Revelation to Wilford Woodruff, 26 January 1880, UR 79:32)

“This law is a Celestial law and pertains to a Celestial Kingdom. ... and appertains to thrones, principalities, powers, dominions, and eternal increase in the Celestial Kingdom of God.” (Revelation to John Taylor, 25/6 June 1882, UR 80:21-22)

“All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory they must do the works of Abraham.” (Revelation to John Taylor Rev, September 1886, UR 88:7-8)

Joseph Smith

"[He said,] It was a doctrine which pertained to Celestial Order and Glory." (William Clayton, Historical Record, 6:225-7)

"He [God] said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off ...We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." (Contributor 5:259)

Brigham Young

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, 19 August 1866.)

John Taylor

"You seem desirous to take part of the law and reject the other part, but it is plainly stated as above quoted, that they were “to do the works of Abraham, and that if ye enter not into my law, ye cannot receive the promise of my Father which was made unto Abraham.” It is further said, “God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and the reason why she did it was because it was the law.” It is evident, therefore, from the whole of the above that other wives are included in this law as well as the one." (Letter to Malinda Merrill, 19 January 1883.)

Wilford Woodruff

"Men may say that with their single marriage the same promises and blessings had been granted. “Why cannot I attain to as much as with three or four?” Many question me in this manner. I suppose they are afraid of [the] Edmunds [Tucker act]. What is the Covenant? It is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and includes a Plurality of Wives and takes both to make the law. The Lord leads the mind step by step to this point: First that all covenants must be made by his power; Next the eternity of the covenant reaching into Eternity; After this the Lord tells us what the Law is and how he justified his servants. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham because this was the law ordained for the fullness and glory of God before the world was. This was the law and from Hagar sprang many nations. The Lord has said that to whom this revelation is given, that they are eligible to this law, its blessings and its requirements. The men can only be saved by acts of righteousness and the woman are under the same law. Joseph Smith declared that all who became heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ must obey his Law, or they cannot enter into the fullness, and if they do not they may loose the one talent. When men are offered knowledge and they refuse it they will be damned, and there is not a man that is sealed by this priesthood [except] by [which he] covenants to enter into the fullness of the Law, and the same with the woman - she says she will observe all that pertains to the New and Everlasting Covenant. Both are under the Covenant - and must obey if they wish to enter into a continuation of the lives or of the seeds." (Utah Stake Quarterly Conference, 4 March 1883, Utah Stake Historical Record, 1877-88)

"You ask[ed] some other questions concerning how many living wives a man must have to fulfill the law. When a man, according to the revelation, marries a wife under the holy order which God has reveal[ed] and then marries another in the same way, he enters into the new and everlasting covenant, so far as he has gone he has obeyed the law." (Letter to Bishop S.A. Woolley, Declarations of the First Presidency on Temple Work, Vol. 5:44; May 22, 1888.)

Joseph F. Smith

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part - and is good so far as it goes - and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, 7 July 1878)

"As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. ... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.31, Joseph F. Smith, 7 July 1878)

The assistant recorder in the Salt Lake Temple informed the Church President that the idea was becoming common that “when a man receives one wife, under the Covenant, he thereby complies with the Celestial Order of marriage, and that his exaltation and eternal progression are just as certain as if he had received a plurality of wives.” President Smith, at the next testimony meeting in the Salt Lake Temple on 5 January 1902, preached that “a man can not obtain a fullness, only through obedience to that law. He emphasized the fact, that it means must not can or may, etc.” (Duncan M. McAllister to Joseph F. Smith, 19 Dec 1901. Smith Papers. Joseph Christensen, Diary, 5 Jan 1902, LDS Church archives (as quoted in D. Michael Quinn, New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904, p. 91, Dialogue, Spring 1985).

First Presidency & Council of Twelve

"We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come. That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our President, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-day Saints up to a short time before September, 1890." (Petition for Amnesty, 19 December 1891.)

Do not plagiarize

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Woah JLHPROF...you're very good at obfuscations when it comes to defending these broken rules.  Wow! 

to make obscure or unclear:

to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.

 

Well, when so many people seem to get the wrong conclusions from information, perhaps more needs to be provided.

[VideoGameJunkie]

So what's the count of posters here who are pro polygamy vs anti polygamy? Is it JLHPROF and bobbie vs everyone else?

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So what's the count of posters here who are pro polygamy vs anti polygamy? Is it JLHPROF and bobbie vs everyone else?

I'm not against it per say, only when someone is told it's for their salvation/exaltation.  IOW, when they are basically married off against their wishes.  Like a couple of women Joseph married.  

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So what's the count of posters here who are pro polygamy vs anti polygamy? Is it JLHPROF and bobbie vs everyone else?

Only one opinion matters:

D&C 132: 53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been faithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

 

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So what's the count of posters here who are pro polygamy vs anti polygamy? Is it JLHPROF and bobbie vs everyone else?

I wouldn't worry about it, VGJ.  I don't anymore.  It used to be very upsetting for me, but I truly now believe that none of us will ever be forced to live polygamy in this life or the next.

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

LDS Scriptures & Revelations

“And in order to obtain the highest [degree in celestial glory – see v. 1], a man must enter into this order of the Priesthood (meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage); And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.” (Instructions of Joseph Smith, 16 May 1843, D&C 131:2-3)

“for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. For behold I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” (Revelation to Joseph Smith, 12 July 1843, D&C 132:3-4, see v. 6,21,27,32)

“And I say again: Wo unto that nation or house or people who seek to hinder my people from obeying the Patriarchal Law of Abraham which leadeth to a celestial glory ...” (Revelation to Wilford Woodruff, 26 January 1880, UR 79:32)

“This law is a Celestial law and pertains to a Celestial Kingdom. ... and appertains to thrones, principalities, powers, dominions, and eternal increase in the Celestial Kingdom of God.” (Revelation to John Taylor, 25/6 June 1882, UR 80:21-22)

“All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed and would enter into my glory they must do the works of Abraham.” (Revelation to John Taylor Rev, September 1886, UR 88:7-8)

Joseph Smith

"[He said,] It was a doctrine which pertained to Celestial Order and Glory." (William Clayton, Historical Record, 6:225-7)

"He [God] said to me that unless I accepted it and introduced it and practiced it, I, together with my people would be damned and cut off ...We have got to observe it. It is an eternal principle and was given by way of commandment and not by way of instruction." (Contributor 5:259)

Brigham Young

"The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, 19 August 1866.)

John Taylor

"You seem desirous to take part of the law and reject the other part, but it is plainly stated as above quoted, that they were “to do the works of Abraham, and that if ye enter not into my law, ye cannot receive the promise of my Father which was made unto Abraham.” It is further said, “God commanded Abraham and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife, and the reason why she did it was because it was the law.” It is evident, therefore, from the whole of the above that other wives are included in this law as well as the one." (Letter to Malinda Merrill, 19 January 1883.)

Wilford Woodruff

"Men may say that with their single marriage the same promises and blessings had been granted. “Why cannot I attain to as much as with three or four?” Many question me in this manner. I suppose they are afraid of [the] Edmunds [Tucker act]. What is the Covenant? It is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and includes a Plurality of Wives and takes both to make the law. The Lord leads the mind step by step to this point: First that all covenants must be made by his power; Next the eternity of the covenant reaching into Eternity; After this the Lord tells us what the Law is and how he justified his servants. God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham because this was the law ordained for the fullness and glory of God before the world was. This was the law and from Hagar sprang many nations. The Lord has said that to whom this revelation is given, that they are eligible to this law, its blessings and its requirements. The men can only be saved by acts of righteousness and the woman are under the same law. Joseph Smith declared that all who became heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ must obey his Law, or they cannot enter into the fullness, and if they do not they may loose the one talent. When men are offered knowledge and they refuse it they will be damned, and there is not a man that is sealed by this priesthood [except] by [which he] covenants to enter into the fullness of the Law, and the same with the woman - she says she will observe all that pertains to the New and Everlasting Covenant. Both are under the Covenant - and must obey if they wish to enter into a continuation of the lives or of the seeds." (Utah Stake Quarterly Conference, 4 March 1883, Utah Stake Historical Record, 1877-88)

"You ask[ed] some other questions concerning how many living wives a man must have to fulfill the law. When a man, according to the revelation, marries a wife under the holy order which God has reveal[ed] and then marries another in the same way, he enters into the new and everlasting covenant, so far as he has gone he has obeyed the law." (Letter to Bishop S.A. Woolley, Declarations of the First Presidency on Temple Work, Vol. 5:44; May 22, 1888.)

Joseph F. Smith

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part - and is good so far as it goes - and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, 7 July 1878)

"As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. ... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.31, Joseph F. Smith, 7 July 1878)

The assistant recorder in the Salt Lake Temple informed the Church President that the idea was becoming common that “when a man receives one wife, under the Covenant, he thereby complies with the Celestial Order of marriage, and that his exaltation and eternal progression are just as certain as if he had received a plurality of wives.” President Smith, at the next testimony meeting in the Salt Lake Temple on 5 January 1902, preached that “a man can not obtain a fullness, only through obedience to that law. He emphasized the fact, that it means must not can or may, etc.” (Duncan M. McAllister to Joseph F. Smith, 19 Dec 1901. Smith Papers. Joseph Christensen, Diary, 5 Jan 1902, LDS Church archives (as quoted in D. Michael Quinn, New Plural Marriages, 1890-1904, p. 91, Dialogue, Spring 1985).

First Presidency & Council of Twelve

"We formerly taught to our people that polygamy, or celestial marriage as commanded by God through Joseph Smith, was right; that it was a necessity to man's highest exaltation in the life to come. That doctrine was publicly promulgated by our President, the late Brigham Young, forty years ago, and was steadily taught and impressed upon the Latter-day Saints up to a short time before September, 1890." (Petition for Amnesty, 19 December 1891.)

What about what these prophets said up through Joseph F Smith?

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

Unlike virtually every other Earthly commandment I can think of, this one has a long history of harmful corruption and exploitation by people allegedly attempting to live it.  If there really is such a thing as Eternal Progression, is it impossible that there exist laws and commands which can only be lived after this life?  If so, why couldn't this be one of them?  The questions I am posing are purely academic, of course.  But, my observations and studies on this issue do make me wonder.

You could say the same thing about monogamous marriage.  How many husbands or wives in monogamous marriages have lived it corruptly and exploitively, while "allegedly attempting to live it"?  My wife's first husband was abusive, violent, and unfaithful, almost from the moment they exited the temple.  It could be that a large majority of marriages in this mortal life have been imperfect.  It is certainly possible that of those imperfect marriages, there will be a good number that do not qualify for eternity.  With imperfect humans, there is no guarantee that all will be well at all times.

I have a certain unique perspective on this plural marriage thing, and to a certain extent I'm participating both in plural marriage AND in a polyandrous marriage.  Wonder how?  Because I am sealed to my faithful deceased wife, but am married to a woman who is sealed to a faithful deceased husband.  I love my deceased wife very much, and I miss her terribly, but at the same time, I love my time-only wife more than I could ever have imagined.  Yet later I know I will have to give her up to her eternal husband.  Interesting situation, wouldn't you say?  This causes me a great deal of sadness, actually.  Because she is so special to me, having been the instrument of dragging me lovingly and gently out of my deep grief over the loss of my deceased wife.  But that sadness is for this life only.  As Bobbieaware has stated, what we feel now as fallen, carnal beings will not govern us as exalted spiritual beings, and trying to compare the two is even less appropriate than comparing apples with oranges.

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

Whether Jacob 2:30 and D&C 132 are God breathed scripture it open for debate.

 

 

Only to those who lack faith in the Holy Spirit to confirm truth.

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So what's the count of posters here who are pro polygamy vs anti polygamy? Is it JLHPROF and bobbie vs everyone else?

I'm neither for nor against it, I guess.

Never expect to be wealthy enough to have to worry about more than one wife.

Unless I win the 🎰❗

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So what's the count of posters here who are pro polygamy vs anti polygamy? Is it JLHPROF and bobbie vs everyone else?

What matters is what God says. I believe it's an eternal principle as taught in D&C 132. I will do what ever God commands me to do to the best of my ability. You should just fast and pray about D&C 132 and see what the Holy Spirit reveals to you. Put off the natural man as we are told to do. I started this thread because MB made a good post that explained how heavenly Father increases his Glory, how He progresses. This is why chastity is so important, so we don't abuse the gift of creation. Some of us are only capable to increase one creation at a time. I suspect Heavenly Father's capabilities to create are unlimited.

[rodheadlee]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

It's confusing in this thread to jump back and forth between discussing "celestial polygamy" and earthly polygamy, but I wonder if the pain felt by VGJ's mother feels any different than the pain felt by some polygamous wives, especially if they were to find out their husband had been practicing polygamy without their knowledge.

Well the things we learn here will certainly carry over to the next life. I suppose it's true with the principle of multiple spouses.

[ttribe]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You could say the same thing about monogamous marriage.  How many husbands or wives in monogamous marriages have lived it corruptly and exploitively, while "allegedly attempting to live it"?  My wife's first husband was abusive, violent, and unfaithful, almost from the moment they exited the temple.  It could be that a large majority of marriages in this mortal life have been imperfect.  It is certainly possible that of those imperfect marriages, there will be a good number that do not qualify for eternity.  With imperfect humans, there is no guarantee that all will be well at all times.

I have a certain unique perspective on this plural marriage thing, and to a certain extent I'm participating both in plural marriage AND in a polyandrous marriage.  Wonder how?  Because I am sealed to my faithful deceased wife, but am married to a woman who is sealed to a faithful deceased husband.  I love my deceased wife very much, and I miss her terribly, but at the same time, I love my time-only wife more than I could ever have imagined.  Yet later I know I will have to give her up to her eternal husband.  Interesting situation, wouldn't you say?  This causes me a great deal of sadness, actually.  Because she is so special to me, having been the instrument of dragging me lovingly and gently out of my deep grief over the loss of my deceased wife.  But that sadness is for this life only.  As Bobbieaware has stated, what we feel now as fallen, carnal beings will not govern us as exalted spiritual beings, and trying to compare the two is even less appropriate than comparing apples with oranges.

Your situation is very different from what I am talking about.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Polygamy was an eternal principle for the people in the 1800s but not anymore. Otherwise prophets and apostles would talk about it in General Conferences today. Listen to the Prophets of today and they don't mention it. President Monson and Gordon B Hinckley don't talk about polygamy. Actually Gordon B Hinckley went on Larry King live in 1998 and said polygamy is not doctrinal and that it's behind us. That was from a modern sitting prophet. So who do we listen to? There must be a reason why no modern prophet or apostle talks about it and they talk about everything we need to hear. 

[Stargazer]

31 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Your situation is very different from what I am talking about.

In degree, I think, but not kind.  Perhaps you're right, but I don't see it quite from your perspective.  My first paragraph does address your specific point, though.  Or at least part of it.

There were plenty of successful plural marriages.  Generalizations are generalizations, after all.

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Polygamy was an eternal principle for the people in the 1800s but not anymore. Otherwise prophets and apostles would talk about it in General Conferences today. Listen to the Prophets of today and they don't mention it. President Monson and Gordon B Hinckley don't talk about polygamy. Actually Gordon B Hinckley went on Larry King live in 1998 and said polygamy is not doctrinal and that it's behind us. That was from a modern sitting prophet. So who do we listen to? There must be a reason why no modern prophet or apostle talks about it and they talk about everything we need to hear. 

It's not doctrinal because it's not practiced at this time.  President Hinckley was certainly well aware that plural marriage is alive and well, just that a man is not permitted to live in more than one active marriage at a time on this earth.  It's still an eternal principle, even though the Lord has temporarily placed it in abeyance.  Section 132 does not describe a temporary principle -- but an eternal one.  

Just because some marriages suffer from situations where one partner is unfaithful and/or abusive (and this by no means includes only unfaithful or abusive husbands!) does not invalidate marriage itself.  Just as plural marriage lived corruptly or abusively does not invalidate plural marriage itself.

It is a wrong to invalidate true principles just because human frailties and poor choices lead to some living those principles badly.  Babies and bathwater.

I note that verse 4 in that section says:

Quote

For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.

Does that sound like a principle that was not eternal?  But according to the principle set forth in Jacob 2:30:

Quote

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

The Lord revokes and commands as HE wills, not as we will.  As for not abiding, but rejecting that covenant -- if the Lord has revoked the practice, which He certainly has for this time, then one may still abide the covenant by accepting it in principle, even if it is not practiced.  So, it seems to me that LDS who say to themselves that if the Lord ever re-institutes the practice of plural marriage that they will refuse to participate, well, they have effectively rejected the New and Everlasting Covenant.  And thus they have also rejected their own temple sealings, at least so it seems to me.  And I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but the scripture seems entirely uncompromising in this respect.

The only puzzle I have had over all this is the matter of Jacob 2:24, wherein the Lord says:

Quote

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

This actually seems to directly contradict what the Lord told David, in the matter of Uriah's wife (2 Samuel 12:97,8):

Quote

 

 7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

 8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

 

The Lord said to David through Nathan His prophet that He it was who gave those wives to David -- and implies that if he had wanted more wives, the Lord would have given to him even more.  So how could his having many wives been abominable to the Lord?

That apparent contradiction puzzled me until I realized that that Jacob 2:24 says "wives AND concubines".  There is no provision in the Law of Moses, or even the Ten Commandments for a concubine.  So the Lord couldn't have objected to the wives, but definitely objected to the concubines -- and Bathsheba, Uriah's wife, was definitely a concubine.  At least until David married her, after murdering Uriah.

VGJ, your mother's husband violating her trust cannot possibly be compared to lawful plural marriage.  Any more than rape can be compared to consensual sexual relations.  Both of my wives, she who is deceased, and she who is not, understood the principle of plural marriage, and both told me that if the Lord commanded it that they would live according to the Lord's command.  If so, then my obedience to His command would be seen by them as justified -- they have consented to be governed by the will of the Lord, if this should ever be commanded.  Although I know very well that they would prefer not to be commanded to live it -- as would I so prefer.  As I have indicated in another post, I definitely believe that plural marriage will not carry the same burden that it does here, because we will not be in a fallen and carnal world.  But our obedience in this mortal life will be counted as righteousness.  However hard it might seem.

 

[bcuzbcuz]

9 hours ago, Ahab said:

Benefit for being faster in eternity, example #1:

With 1000 wives I could have 1000 children in about 9 months,  if not sooner. 

With only 1 wife it would take me 1000 periods of 9 months to have just as many.

Etc.

You have mis-understood completely, entirely, utterly, perfectly, altogether, from beginning to end, absolutely, comprehensively, fully, wholly, unconditionally, thoroughly, utterly, exhaustively.

A man with 1000 wives will be able to have X number of children. One wife, given eternity, will be able to have X number of children. The eternity for a 1000 wives is not longer than an eternity for 1 wife and the total outcome of children will not differ.