Eternity Only Sealings?

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, BillyandJane said:

Does it really matter to anyone here whether or not he actually had sex with Helen? Shouldn't the fact that he emotionally manipulated a 14 year old into marriage by hanging the very salvation of her parents over her head a horrible enough action?

Nope.

And see, here's the kicker.  What if her salvation and her family salvation actually WERE impacted by their marriage?  Can you say from your all-seeing glass house that they weren't?
 

Edited February 10, 2017 by JLHPROF

[cdowis]

57 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But it gives the right to a MARRIED man to have sex with multiple women (plural wives), just as long as the women are single?

How about Emma's exclusive rights to intimate relations with her husband?  They aren't as important?

Hold that question for the Lord on Judgement Day.  I am sure He will bes interested in hearing your views on the matter.

Edited February 10, 2017 by cdowis

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Hold that question for the Lord on Judgement Day.  I am sure He will bes interested in hearing your views on the matter.

Nice dodge 

I'm beginning to see you really don't understand or know much about this topic at all.  You certainly don't have any documentation or evidence to back up most of your claims and for what you believe about it.

Edited February 10, 2017 by JulieM

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Hold that question for the Lord on Judgement Day.  I am sure He will bes interested in hearing your views on the matter.

AKA: "If you won't listen to me speak for the Lord, ask him yourself."

Just can't quite admit to having a glaring double standard, eh? If you think you speak for the Lord and He has a double standard, why is it so difficult for you to say outright that a man with multiple spouses is married but a woman with multiple spouses is an adulterer?

[juliann]

36 minutes ago, BillyandJane said:

Does it really matter to anyone here whether or not he actually had sex with Helen? Shouldn't the fact that he emotionally manipulated a 14 year old into marriage by hanging the very salvation of her parents over her head a horrible enough action? 

The optics aren't good but she stayed in polygamy and vigorously defended it throughout her life. She has left us with more documentation than most.  Whatever he was "hanging over her head" was enough to convince thousands of others, as well. 

It is a difficult position, one as rickety as those who turn "adultery" into a gender game, to show concern for women while denying them their choices and rejecting their claims to revelation. In other words, you set yourself up in laying down what a woman may and may not do.   Not cool in this day and age. I sure hope it isn't Billy deciding what is best for women.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

AKA: "If you won't listen to me speak for the Lord, ask him yourself."

Just can't quite admit to having a glaring double standard, eh? If you think you speak for the Lord and He has a double standard, why is it so difficult for you to say outright that a man with multiple spouses is married but a woman with multiple spouses is an adulterer?

If God is being used as justification, I am mystified by his appeal to civil law to prove polyandry is adultery because legally a husband has exclusive sexual rights to his wife given the law at the time also stated a wife had exclusive sexual rights to her husband, if I understand it correctly.

Edited February 10, 2017 by Calm

[Guest]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

 

 

Thank you for that. I find it quite tasteless that people throw in "older" women to prove no sex when they do not consider geriatric men acquiring teen wives 

Sadly polygamy is a bankrupt system, be it in the OT, or our early Church favorites are always the norm, for wife's and children. Thankfully the practice ended long ago. When you thanked me for noting older women in a question to critics, are you thanking me for pointing out the views of others, or upset that I used this example?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Sadly polygamy is a bankrupt system, be it in the OT, or our early Church favorites are always the norm, for wife's and children. Thankfully the practice ended long ago.

Can't agree with any part of this I'm afraid.  Doesn't mesh with my view of things.
But everyone sees things differently.

[juliann]

31 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Sadly polygamy is a bankrupt system, be it in the OT, or our early Church favorites are always the norm, for wife's and children. Thankfully the practice ended long ago. When you thanked me for noting older women in a question to critics, are you thanking me for pointing out the views of others, or upset that I used this example?

There are two statements that demonstrate how subordination of women drives the study of polygamy. One is the creepy gleeful announcement that it couldn't possibly be about lust because look! A guy married a middle aged woman!  They just don't add the EW that follows the idea of a 50 year old woman being sexually active along with 80 year old men. So it was nice to see an appropriate view.

The second is the ever present and very demeaning "I can only handle one!" The assumption being that women need to be "handled" or that they are unmanageable additions to the human race. We are faced with statements that were once considered innocent but are now loaded. We have acclimated to not being able to use racist nursery rhymes anymore, for instance, but we still haven't gotten to that point of enlightenment when it comes to insulting women.

As for polygamy, I'm still trying to come to a conclusion. JS simply didn't leave enough information to figure out why. It goes without saying that any system that requires that many more women in a closed society just isn't going to come to a good end. I also think BY institutionalized it and created something different. There is just no excuse for isolating that many women, as he did. It deprived them of companionship and security.... but in some cases, children. Probably the only thing that kept it going that long was the easy divorce, and it was in decline before the Manifesto.  I would like to think JS had a basis for it. although very poorly implemented. I find it hard to justify what BY did with it. 

Edited February 11, 2017 by juliann

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, juliann said:

There are two statements that demonstrate how subordination of women drives the study of polygamy. One is the creepy gleeful announcement that it couldn't possibly be about lust because look! A guy married a middle aged woman!  They just don't add the EW that follows the idea of a 50 year old woman being sexually active along with 80 year old men. So it was nice to see an appropriate view.

The second is the ever present and very demeaning "I can only handle one!" The assumption being that women need to be "handled" or that they are unmanageable additions to the human race. We are faced with statements that were once considered innocent but are now loaded. We have acclimated to not being able to use racist nursery rhymes anymore, for instance, but we still haven't gotten to that point of enlightenment when it comes to insulting women.

As for polygamy, I'm still trying to come to a conclusion. JS simply didn't leave enough information to figure out why. It goes without saying that any system that requires that many more women in a closed society just isn't going to come to a good end. I also think BY institutionalized it and created something different. There is just no excuse for isolating that many women, as he did. It deprived them of companionship and security.... but in some cases, children. Probably the only thing that kept it going that long was the easy divorce, and it was in decline before the Manifesto.  I would like to think JS had a basis for it. although very poorly implemented. I find it hard to justify what BY did with it. 

All of that said, I don't understand polygamy, and ever example in the OT, shows women on the losing end of these types of relationships. Then we have Jacob in the Book of Mormon who speaks of polygamy as evil...moving forward to D&C 132...just to confusing. 

As for my wife, I am a one woman man, because I love her. My bio father turned out to be a bigamist, which causes me to view polygamy in only negative terms. So my wife's heart dwells safely in my heart. If an angel with a flaming sword came to me and told me to enter into polygamy, I would just tell him to run me through. 

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, BillyandJane said:

Does it really matter to anyone here whether or not he actually had sex with Helen? Shouldn't the fact that he emotionally manipulated a 14 year old into marriage by hanging the very salvation of her parents over her head a horrible enough action? 

Yes, this promise was too far reaching (IMO) and put great pressure on a 14 year old:   

 ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred."

How could Joseph possibly know how Helen's kindred would live their lives (worthy of guranteed exaltation)?  That would be an interesting study (to see what happened to her "kindred" and if they even all stayed in the church).

But if you have the chance to study Helen's life and read her writings, she was one incredible woman.  Her writings are beautiful (even about polygamy).  She is faith inspiring (as so many of the women involved in polygamy were).  

This is one reason cdowis's posts and beliefs regarding the women and polygamy are disturbing (for me at least).

Edited February 11, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

"How could Joseph possibly know how Helen's kindred would live their lives (worthy of guranteed exaltation)?"

It is essentially the same thing as assuring parents if they live righteously no child shall be lost, in my view.  However that works out, if true, mortality is not the only time that is relevant.  

Edited February 11, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

"How could Joseph possibly know how Helen's kindred would live their lives (worthy of guranteed exaltation)?"

It is essentially the same thing as assuring parents if they live righteously no child shall be lost, in my view.  However that works out, if true, mortality is not the only time that is relevant.  

I agree.  But kindred is all family relations (unless Joseph meant otherwise and maybe he did).  Did all of Helen's siblings (half and full) stay faithful?  All her children (we know mostly about her son, Orson Whitney)?  Grandchildren?

It has shades of the second anointing actually (and I don't know if any had received that yet?).

Edited February 11, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

But we already know that faithful parents don't always have faithful kids.  So if in the eternities, nonfaithful children can be pulled to the Celestial kingdom (where there is no doctrine that progression can't continue that I am aware of so exaltation is a possibility), then why not other family members?

I am not saying one or the other are true, just that if one is, the other is likely as well.  It seems a violation of agency to me, but then there are other aspects of eternity that originally seemed paradoxical to me at first, so I am not rejecting it.  I hope it is true, it taken to its logical end is a beautiful, compassionate belief.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Calm

[Ouagadougou]

7 hours ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake. NOBODY disagrees with that (not counting fringe outliers.)  That was a belief of the RLDS church at one time.  Catch up.

That's not what many LDS apologists claim.  For example:

 

"All public interactions were conducted without divulging the clandestine sealed marriages. While it is not possible to establish an accurate picture of his relations with his polygamous wives, several observations suggest that sexual relations occurred infrequently, at best."

http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/common-questions/sexuality-2/#SexualRelationswithPluralWivesWereaRarityforJosephSmith

Catch up!  

[Calm]

"Infrequently" does not equate to "never".

"Rarity" does not equate to "never".

Your own link and quote disproves your claim.

Edited February 11, 2017 by Calm

[hagoth7]

21 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

"...While it is not possible to establish an accurate picture of his relations with his polygamous wives, several observations suggest that sexual relations occurred infrequently, at best."

Same could be said of many monogamous marriages.  (Which is more relevant to the OP/topic than some might prefer to believe.)

Edited February 11, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

But we already know that faithful parents don't always have faithful kids.  So if in the eternities, nonfaithful children can be pulled to the Celestial kingdom (where there is no doctrine that progression can't continue that I am aware of so exaltation is a possibility), then why not other family members?

I am not saying one or the other are true, just that if one is, the other is likely as well.  It seems a violation of agency to me...

I don't see it as a violation of agency.

Abraham's seed were promised blessings...and such were promised to be a future blessing to others...due to Abraham's faithfulness.

Ditto with Jacob/Israel., etc.

Ditto with Rahab...a pillar of active faith. (Because of such testimony, many believe that Ruth, David, and Jesus of Nazareth all descend from Rahab.)

One's faithfulness *can* eventually bless/reach current and future generations. In this realm or elsewhere. Despite any temporary Laman/Lemuel appearances to the contrary.

Edited February 11, 2017 by hagoth7

[JulieM]

11 hours ago, hagoth7 said:

I don't see it as a violation of agency.

Abraham's seed were promised blessings...and such were promised to be a future blessing to others...due to Abraham's faithfulness.

Ditto with Jacob/Israel., etc.

Ditto with Rahab...a pillar of active faith. (Because of such testimony, many believe that Ruth, David, and Jesus of Nazareth all descend from Rahab.)

One's faithfulness *can* eventually bless/reach current and future generations. In this realm or elsewhere. Despite any temporary Laman/Lemuel appearances to the contrary.

Yes, I agree.  But promising blessings is different that promising to "ensure your eternal salvation and that of you father's household and all of your kindred". That's a lot to put on a 14 year old girl to pursuade her to marry you, IMO. That's my point here.  Again, that's similar to the 2nd Anointing promise.

But I also love to read Helen's writings as she got older.  She was an incredible woman who loved the gospel.  She did live polygamy with her second, legal husband too as the first wife (I believe Horace Whitney had 2 plural wives).  

Edited February 11, 2017 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Yes, I agree.  But promising blessings is different that promising to "ensure your eternal salvation and that of you father's household and all of your kindred". That's a lot to put on a 14 year old girl to pursuade her to marry you, IMO. That's my point here.  Again, that's similar to the 2nd Anointing promise.

But I also love to read Helen's writings as she got older.  She was an incredible woman who loved the gospel.  She did live polygamy with her second, legal husband too as the first wife (I believe Horace Whitney had 2 plural wives).  

To be fair to the Joseph quote he wasn't saying they'd lose salvation if she declined.  He was guaranteeing that as part of his family the blessings sealed on his head would be theirs as well.  Not a threat, but an incentive, one even a child could understand.

[HappyJackWagon]

"Eternity only" is a funky phrase. Is there any moment in the pre-mortal, mortal, or post mortal realm that is not included in "eternity"? Is this life not a part of "eternity"? Of course it is.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

"Eternity only" is a funky phrase. Is there any moment in the pre-mortal, mortal, or post mortal realm that is not included in "eternity"? Is this life not a part of "eternity"? Of course it is.

Which is why claims that polygamy is only a relic of the past are without merit.  Time and all eternity in our theology would mean those sealed in eternal plural marriages will be as much a part of our Celestial futures as any monogamous eternal marriages. Maybe we can attend a fireside at Father Abraham's mansion and meet Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.

[juliann]

On 2/10/2017 at 6:12 PM, Calm said:

"How could Joseph possibly know how Helen's kindred would live their lives (worthy of guranteed exaltation)?"

It is essentially the same thing as assuring parents if they live righteously no child shall be lost, in my view.  However that works out, if true, mortality is not the only time that is relevant.  

This is affirmed in what I consider Elder Packer's greatest talk. What is impressive is the pedigree he gives of this promise. Elder Bednar tried to walk it back it bit a couple of years ago, but I give Elder Packer and his predecessors the win. Who knows what JS meant by this, but it was the beginning of one of our most precious doctrines. I think we need to allow for the fact that he didn't come out of the gate with a CHI. 

 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/05/our-moral-environment.p1?lang=eng

Quote

The Measure of a Successful Parent

It is a great challenge to raise a family in the darkening mists of our moral environment.

We emphasize that the greatest work you will do will be within the walls of your home (see Harold B. Lee, Ensign, July 1973, p. 98), and that “no other success can compensate for failure in the home” (David O. McKay, Improvement Era, June 1964, p. 445).

The measure of our success as parents, however, will not rest solely on how our children turn out. That judgment would be just only if we could raise our families in a perfectly moral environment, and that now is not possible.

It is not uncommon for responsible parents to lose one of their children, for a time, to influences over which they have no control. They agonize over rebellious sons or daughters. They are puzzled over why they are so helpless when they have tried so hard to do what they should.

It is my conviction that those wicked influences one day will be overruled.

“The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.” (Orson F. Whitney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, p. 110.)

We cannot overemphasize the value of temple marriage, the binding ties of the sealing ordinance, and the standards of worthiness required of them. When parents keep the covenants they have made at the altar of the temple, their children will be forever bound to them. President Brigham Young said:

“Let the father and mother, who are members of this Church and Kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers, I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation,comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., 2:90–91.)

 

 

Edited February 12, 2017 by juliann

[juliann]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which is why claims that polygamy is only a relic of the past are without merit.  Time and all eternity in our theology would mean those sealed in eternal plural marriages will be as much a part of our Celestial futures as any monogamous eternal marriages. Maybe we can attend a fireside at Father Abraham's mansion and meet Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.

I strongly suspect that Hagar met up with someone who treated her a little better.  Since everyone is eventually sealed to everybody they ever married, I doubt it will be that tidy. It isn't the sealing that will keep them together (whatever that means) it will be their own desire to stay together....or not. 

[JulieM]

On February 11, 2017 at 8:54 AM, JLHPROF said:

To be fair to the Joseph quote he wasn't saying they'd lose salvation if she declined.  He was guaranteeing that as part of his family the blessings sealed on his head would be theirs as well.  Not a threat, but an incentive, one even a child could understand.

I agree.  But Helen was seeing it through a 14 year old's eyes and understanding.  That's the point I was making.  She probably understood it more as she got older and her writings show that.

Edited February 12, 2017 by JulieM