Different Degrees of Glory.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

i am not sure I follow you. Take for example some close relatives of mine who joined the Church and were baptized but who became inactive. They die. Are you saying they need to get baptized again to gain admittance to the celestial kingdom? If they never got baptized in the first place where is the "second chance?"

No, I am not speaking of these.  (Although, depending on the degree of inactivity I am a believer in the ordinance of rebaptism).

Quote

Are you speaking merely of those who were taught the missionary lessons, but didn't get baptized? 

I am speaking primarily of these.  Those who were offered the atonement of Jesus Christ (ie, taught the gospel correctly) but chose to reject it.  I have yet to find the source of the doctrine that says work for the dead can efficacious on their behalf.  And I am speaking of those who unlike your inactive relatives actually became "apostates", ie fought the Church and gospel.

I do believe in repentance, but there is a reason we speak out against deathbed repentance.

• Alma 34:32 For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors.
  33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.
  34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.
   
• D&C 128:5 You may think this order of things to be very particular; but let me tell you that it is only to answer the will of God, by conforming to the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who should die without a knowledge of the gospel.
• D&C 137:7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

I have not seen the scripture that removes this defining clause.  If there is a source that removes that requirement and extends the blessing to those who had the knowledge of the gospel and rejected it I'd like to know it.
 

Quote

Is there some reason we should withhold vicarious baptism from them? I don't think that vicarious baptism is some kind of guarantee into the celestial kingdom in life. Why should it be in our third estate?

No, I don't believe we should judge and withhold baptism for any dead.  I am just saying that the purpose of the ordinance used to be defined based on scripture as "those who die without a knowledge of the gospel".  At some point we extended it to include those who have the knowledge but reject the gospel in this life, and I would like to know the source of that extension.

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Seeing the light?  I think it's an example of people understanding something incorrectly and then later finding out through further study, prayer, and inspiration that they were previously incorrect about that idea.

In this case, being incorrect in the idea that people who taught that baptism for the dead was always an ordinance only for those who never heard the gospel in this life were teaching the truth.

I'm sure there have been many people who have taught that incorrect teaching, but that doesn't mean they were right.  Baptism for the dead is and always has been an ordinance for any dead who need and choose to be baptized.

Interestingly, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph Fielding Smith taught that Church member's ancestors were more likely to accept of baptism on their behalf than non-member ancestors.
This is the often used quote "There will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel" but it specifically address to those ancestors of faithful members.

"So it will be with your fathers. There will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel. Jesus while His body lay in the tomb, went and preached to the spirits in prison, who were destroyed in the days of Noah. After so long an imprisonment, in torment, they doubtless gladly embraced the Gospel, and if so they will be saved in the kingdom of God. The fathers of this people will embrace the Gospel. It is my duty to honor my father who begot me in the flesh. It is your duty to do the same. When you do this, the Spirit of God will be with you." (Messages of the First Presidency, 3:257-258)

"Therefore our fathers are more likely to receive the gospel (if they did not hear it in this life, to receive it in the spirit world), than are those whose descendants are not in the Church and who refused to receive the gospel here. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:133)

[Ahab]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Interestingly, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph Fielding Smith taught that Church member's ancestors were more likely to accept of baptism on their behalf than non-member ancestors.
This is the often used quote "There will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel" but it specifically address to those ancestors of faithful members.

"So it will be with your fathers. There will be very few, if any, who will not accept the Gospel. Jesus while His body lay in the tomb, went and preached to the spirits in prison, who were destroyed in the days of Noah. After so long an imprisonment, in torment, they doubtless gladly embraced the Gospel, and if so they will be saved in the kingdom of God. The fathers of this people will embrace the Gospel. It is my duty to honor my father who begot me in the flesh. It is your duty to do the same. When you do this, the Spirit of God will be with you." (Messages of the First Presidency, 3:257-258)

"Therefore our fathers are more likely to receive the gospel (if they did not hear it in this life, to receive it in the spirit world), than are those whose descendants are not in the Church and who refused to receive the gospel here. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:133)

More likely, yes, I can see that.  I'm still hoping that my father will, someday, and he doesn't have much longer to live here before he dies.  Or actually, in his case, although he has accepted the gospel, and accepted the idea that he needs to be baptized, he hasn't yet been baptized yet with someone with the authority to do it.  And he hasn't been sealed to his wife here, either, although he does want to be with his wife forever, after they die.

I wonder sometimes if we can just approve of the work that was done by others if we believe it was done correctly.  He and members of his church baptism is necessary and that baptism involves full immersion in water. So it's just a matter of the proper authority approving it.

[Eek!]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am not convinced that marriage covenants are so easily dissolved if neither participant breaks the covenant.
If neither have violated their temple covenants (chastity for instance) I am not so sure that any divorces received are valid.  I think some divorced people may find themselves still married in the next life.
I agree that they may not be "forced to remain together against your will" but that doesn't necessarily mean free from the covenant and free to move on.  Separation and divorce are two different issues.

BRIGHAM YOUNG
"There is no ecclesiastical law that you know anything about, to free a wife from a man to whom she has been sealed, if he honors his Priesthood"  DBY 8:345

" I say to my sisters in the kingdom, who are sealed to men, and who say, "We do not want this man in eternity if he is going to conduct himself there as he does here"—there is not the least danger in the world of your ever seeing him in eternity or of his seeing you there if he proves himself unworthy here. But if he honors his Priesthood, and you are to blame and come short of doing your duty, and prove yourself page unworthy of celestial glory, it will be left to him to do what he pleases with you. You will be very glad to get to him if you find the fault was in yourself and not in him. But if you are not at fault, be not troubled about being joined to him there, for no man will have the privilege of gathering his wives and children around him there unless he proves himself worthy of them.  I have said a number of times, and I will say again, to you ladies who want to get a bill of divorce from your husbands, because they do not treat you right, or because you do not exactly like their ways, there is a principle upon which a woman can leave a man, but if the man honors his Priesthood, it will be pretty hard work for you to get away from him. If he is just and right, serves God and is full of justice, love, mercy and truth, he will have the power that is sealed upon him, and will do what he pleases with you. When you want to get a bill of divorce, you had better wait and find out whether the Lord is willing to give you one or not, and not come to me. I tell the brethren and sisters, when they come to me and want a bill of divorce, that I am ready to seal people and administer in the ordinances, and they are welcome to my services, but when they undertake to break the commandments and tear to pieces the doings of the Lord, I make them give me something. I tell a man he has to give me ten dollars if he wants a divorce. For what? My services? No, for his foolishness. If you want a bill of divorce give me ten dollars, so that I can put it down in the book that such a man and such a woman have dissolved partnership. Do you think you have done so when you have obtained a bill of divorce? No, nor ever can if you are faithful to the covenants you have made. It takes a higher power than a bill of divorce to take a woman from a man who is a good man and honors his Priesthood—it must be a man who possesses a higher power in the Priesthood, or else the woman is bound to her husband, and will be forever and ever. You might as well ask me for a piece of blank paper for a divorce, as to have a little writing on it, saying—"We mutually agree to dissolve partnership and keep ourselves apart from each other," &c. It is all nonsense and folly; there is no such thing in the ordinances of the house of God; you cannot find any such law. It is true Jesus told the people that a man could put away his wife for fornication, but for nothing short of this. There is a law for you to be obedient, and humble and faithful."   JofD 17:118-119

"President Young said that when a man married a wife, he took her for better or worse and had no right to ill use her; a man that would mistreat a woman in order to get her to leave him would find himself alone in the worlds to come. He said he knew of no law to give a man in polygamy a divorce. He had told the brethren that if they would break the law, they should pay for it; but he did not want them to come to him for a divorce as it was not right...."

HEBER C. KIMBALL
"“What you have agreed to do, God will require you to perform, if it should be ten thousand years after this time.  And when the servants of God speak to you, and require you to do a thing, the Lord God will fulfill His words he gave to you through His servants. Inasmuch as you have come into this Church, and made a covenant to forsake the world, and cleave unto the Lord, and keep His commandments, the Lord will compel you to do it, if it should be in ten thousand years from this time. These are my views, and I know it will be so.”

Thank you very much for taking the time to find and bold the relevant parts and post these quotes.  

[Stargazer]

On 6/11/2018 at 2:48 PM, ALarson said:

I have asked that of members in discussions as well.  Most just say they don't know.

The whole sealing thing gets very messy when one actually starts analyzing actual situations.  I know of men and women who divorced and had their sealing cancelled who have children.  Some have been told the children remain sealed to both of them if they remain worthy.  So how does that look in the afterlife if both the husband and wife get sealed to other spouses and both go to the Celestial kingdom?  How about if they have more children with their new spouses?  I can go on and on with other examples that get messy too.  Many just simply have to concede that hopefully God will sort it all out.

I can offer a little certainty on at least part of this.

My late wife was previuosly sealed to her husband who was excommunicated. He never returned to the church. They had 7 children together, all either sealed to them or born in the covenant. When she received her letter from Pres. Kimball informing her of the sealing cancellation, he specifically said that the cancellation did not affect the rights of the sealed chilldren to eternal parenthood. They had the right by virtue of their sealing, and that right was unaffected by whatever happened to their parents. 

This makes perfect sense. For how could you be denied a blessing by virtue of someone else's failure or sin? If it's your own failure, then that's that, but otherwise your right to a blessing should not be impaired.

A long time married couple in my previous ward were not sealed to each other. This was because her previous husband had died, and his previous wife had left the church and their marriage. He was concerned that he would not have an eternal spouse. He needn't have been, because the same principle applies. He was faithful, but his sealed spouse was not. He cannot lose the blessing because of the failure or sin of another. If she was not worthy, then another will be found for him, ultimately. This last matter reflects my own assessment, but I don't think I'm totally off base. 

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I can offer a little certainty on at least part of this.

My late wife was previuosly sealed to her husband who was excommunicated. He never returned to the church. They had 7 children together, all either sealed to them or born in the covenant. When she received her letter from Pres. Kimball informing her of the sealing cancellation, he specifically said that the cancellation did not affect the rights of the sealed chilldren to eternal parenthood. They had the right by virtue of their sealing, and that right was unaffected by whatever happened to their parents. 

This makes perfect sense. For how could you be denied a blessing by virtue of someone else's failure or sin? If it's your own failure, then that's that, but otherwise your right to a blessing should not be impaired.

A long time married couple in my previous ward were not sealed to each other. This was because her previous husband had died, and his previous wife had left the church and their marriage. He was concerned that he would not have an eternal spouse. He needn't have been, because the same principle applies. He was faithful, but his sealed spouse was not. He cannot lose the blessing because of the failure or sin of another. If she was not worthy, then another will be found for him, ultimately. This last matter reflects my own assessment, but I don't think I'm totally off base. 

You don't have to worry about it, since supposedly there's polygamy in heaven. But women on the other hand...

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You don't have to worry about it, since supposedly there's polygamy in heaven. But women on the other hand...

Women?

Women who understand a merciful God do not have to worry about the rules of men who are not inspired.

(translation: don't worry about it- whatever the results they will be  far far better than any human can possibly imagine regardless of what is said here)

We have no clue how this is "really" going to work and yes we should admit it more

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Women?

Women who understand a merciful God do not have to worry about the rules of men who are not inspired.

(translation: don't worry about it- whatever the results they will be  far far better than any human can possibly imagine regardless of what is said here)

We have no clue how this is "really" going to work and yes we should admit it more

True that!! 😁

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I can offer a little certainty on at least part of this.

My late wife was previuosly sealed to her husband who was excommunicated. He never returned to the church. They had 7 children together, all either sealed to them or born in the covenant. When she received her letter from Pres. Kimball informing her of the sealing cancellation, he specifically said that the cancellation did not affect the rights of the sealed chilldren to eternal parenthood. They had the right by virtue of their sealing, and that right was unaffected by whatever happened to their parents. 

This makes perfect sense. For how could you be denied a blessing by virtue of someone else's failure or sin? If it's your own failure, then that's that, but otherwise your right to a blessing should not be impaired.

A long time married couple in my previous ward were not sealed to each other. This was because her previous husband had died, and his previous wife had left the church and their marriage. He was concerned that he would not have an eternal spouse. He needn't have been, because the same principle applies. He was faithful, but his sealed spouse was not. He cannot lose the blessing because of the failure or sin of another. If she was not worthy, then another will be found for him, ultimately. This last matter reflects my own assessment, but I don't think I'm totally off base. 

Yes, I agree with all you wrote, Stargazer (and I've seen similar examples as well).

Where it gets a bit tricky is when two people marry, are sealed, have children, then divorce (and cancel their sealing) and both remarry in the temple.  The children are still sealed to both their mother and their father (if I understand correctly), but their parents are now each sealed to a different spouse.  

That's just one example of many where the sealing situation isn't clear cut and gets messy (there are even more complicated situations that I've seen).   This is where most leaders just have to concede that it'll all have to be sorted out after this life.  IMO, there is going to be a lot of sorting taking place!

The dynastic sealings in the early days of the church get to be a real mess when analyzed (and the polyandry, grown men sealed together as father and son, etc.)

Edited June 18, 2018 by ALarson

[Stargazer]

On 6/17/2018 at 10:08 PM, Tacenda said:

You don't have to worry about it, since supposedly there's polygamy in heaven. But women on the other hand...

Did I say I was worried? 🙂  No, I didn't.  The only worry I mentioned was that of the late Don Ericson, a faithful member of the Church whose temple marriage failed because of his wife's unfaithfulness.

If you want to bring polygamy into it, fine and dandy.  But I prefer the term "plural marriage".  In my mind, at least, "polygamy" implies a man lording over a harem of both wives and concubines, who each of them is in bitter competition with all the others for his favor and attention, which he bestows upon them according to how each pleases him best: a master-servant relationship at its cynical core.  Whereas "plural marriage" implies a man and a woman in full mutual cooperation, multiplied two or more times, where each wife is loved and cherished by her husband as if she were the only one.  Yes, I know this sounds like a very ideal case, a rare thing in this very unideal world.  

But who is our model?  As Christians, we know quite well that our Father in Heaven loves each and every one of us equally, and he loves us more than we, as mortals, are even capable of loving ourselves.  And he is our model because, after Jesus Christ, he is our ultimate exemplar.  He said to Moses, "This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."  Can you imagine what this "immortality and eternal life" is?  We can imagine immortality, because we know that people die and are no longer with us. So we can easily imagine the converse of dying, which is never dying.  But eternal life?  Isn't it just a synonym for immortality? The answer is, no, it isn't.  I'll explain that in a moment (you've probably heard this before, sorry to be so pedantic!).

Consider 1 John 3:2-3, where John writes: "...now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

The key is in the phrase "it doth not yet appear what we shall be".  In our limited state here in mortality we can only see as "through a glass, darkly," as Paul wrote (I Cor 13:12) and we don't see ourselves as truly eternal beings -- we cannot fully comprehend what it means to be a child of God -- but we aren't just mayflies, here one day and gone the next!  Paul also wrote: "...when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." (1 Cor 13:10).  The perfect is: we shall be like him.  

Doctrine and Covenants Section 19 contains some of the most powerful messages God has ever caused to be written.  It contains, among other things, what God means when he has his prophets and his son use the word "eternal", as in the phrase "eternal life".  

In DC 19:11,12 we read:

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

I suggest you read the entire chain of explanation for this conclusion, which occurs in verses 5 - 12.

Using this meaning of "eternal" we come to the inescapable meaning of the term "eternal life," which is "God's life", or "the life which God leads".  And as noted, it is well-nigh impossible for us to understand what this is, but if we strain our imagination and our faith, we can at least comprehend that when we have "slipped the surly bonds of earth" we will have an enormously increased understanding of the things of God.  And we will understand what love truly is -- and with that understanding, we will understand how it is possible for an eternal man to love several eternal women, and love each and every one with equal force, so that none of them will feel slighted, denigrated, or left shut out of full devotion.  For in eternity, we are not beings who can only do one thing at a time, who must turn our backs on that which we are not at the moment focussed. 

I used to dread the idea of plural marriage.  I used to joke nervously about it, how it was a man serving two masters, and other semi-witticisms.  But when my wife passed away and I was left alone and wishing that God would soon take me away, too, so I could rejoin her, he sent me someone else for the next part of my mortal journey.  Her name is Wendy.  She was previously sealed to a faithful brother, and so I know she and I will not be together after this life, but I love her at least as much as I love my departed spouse. I never imagined that it was possible to love two women like this.  I don't claim that I love both equally, and I won't say whom I love the most, but I do now finally understand that it is fully possible to do so.  If I had both of them in mortality at the same time, I would willingly burn myself out loving them both as equally as possible. And I'm not talking about the physical aspects that everyone gets so hung up about.  I'm 66 years old, no longer a teenager who thinks of sex every ten minutes.  Love is so much more than that.

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

19 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I agree with all you wrote, Stargazer (and I've seen similar examples as well).

Where it gets a bit tricky is when two people marry, are sealed, have children, then divorce (and cancel their sealing) and both remarry in the temple.  The children are still sealed to both their mother and their father (if I understand correctly), but their parents are now each sealed to a different spouse.  

That's just one example of many where the sealing situation isn't clear cut and gets messy (there are even more complicated situations that I've seen).   This is where most leaders just have to concede that it'll all have to be sorted out after this life.  IMO, there is going to be a lot of sorting taking place!

The dynastic sealings in the early days of the church get to be a real mess when analyzed (and the polyandry, grown men sealed together as father and son, etc.)

The principle that President Kimball seemed to be explaining in that cancellation letter, is that all sealings are predicated upon faithfulness, both of parents and children. And thus they all remain essentially in abeyance, or rather, a state of potential, until resolved by the Holy Spirit of Promise.  I suspect that, in the end, we will all find that all those "real messes" (as you so aptly put it) will be resolved most appropriately.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Did I say I was worried? 🙂  No, I didn't.  The only worry I mentioned was that of the late Don Ericson, a faithful member of the Church whose temple marriage failed because of his wife's unfaithfulness.

If you want to bring polygamy into it, fine and dandy.  But I prefer the term "plural marriage".  In my mind, at least, "polygamy" implies a man lording over a harem of both wives and concubines, who each of them is in bitter competition with all the others for his favor and attention, which he bestows upon them according to how each pleases him best: a master-servant relationship at its cynical core.  Whereas "plural marriage" implies a man and a woman in full mutual cooperation, multiplied two or more times, where each wife is loved and cherished by her husband as if she were the only one.  Yes, I know this sounds like a very ideal case, a rare thing in this very unideal world.  

But who is our model?  As Christians, we know quite well that our Father in Heaven loves each and every one of us equally, and he loves us more than we, as mortals, are even capable of loving ourselves.  And he is our model because, after Jesus Christ, he is our ultimate exemplar.  He said to Moses, "This is my work and my glory: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."  Can you imagine what this "immortality and eternal life" is?  We can imagine immortality, because we know that people die and are no longer with us. So we can easily imagine the converse of dying, which is never dying.  But eternal life?  Isn't it just a synonym for immortality? The answer is, no, it isn't.  I'll explain that in a moment (you've probably heard this before, sorry to be so pedantic!).

Consider 1 John 3:2-3, where John writes: "...now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."

The key is in the phrase "it doth not yet appear what we shall be".  In our limited state here in mortality we can only see as "through a glass, darkly," as Paul wrote (I Cor 13:12) and we don't see ourselves as truly eternal beings -- we cannot fully comprehend what it means to be a child of God -- but we aren't just mayflies, here one day and gone the next!  Paul also wrote: "...when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." (1 Cor 13:10).  The perfect is: we shall be like him.  

Doctrine and Covenants Section 19 contains some of the most powerful messages God has ever caused to be written.  It contains, among other things, what God means when he has his prophets and his son use the word "eternal", as in the phrase "eternal life".  

In DC 19:11,12 we read:

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

I suggest you read the entire chain of explanation for this conclusion, which occurs in verses 5 - 12.

Using this meaning of "eternal" we come to the inescapable meaning of the term "eternal life," which is "God's life", or "the life which God leads".  And as noted, it is well-nigh impossible for us to understand what this is, but if we strain our imagination and our faith, we can at least comprehend that when we have "slipped the surly bonds of earth" we will have an enormously increased understanding of the things of God.  And we will understand what love truly is -- and with that understanding, we will understand how it is possible for an eternal man to love several eternal women, and love each and every one with equal force, so that none of them will feel slighted, denigrated, or left shut out of full devotion.  For in eternity, we are not beings who can only do one thing at a time, who must turn our backs on that which we are not at the moment focussed. 

I used to dread the idea of plural marriage.  I used to joke nervously about it, how it was a man serving two masters, and other semi-witticisms.  But when my wife passed away and I was left alone and wishing that God would soon take me away, too, so I could rejoin her, he sent me someone else for the next part of my mortal journey.  Her name is Wendy.  She was previously sealed to a faithful brother, and so I know she and I will not be together after this life, but I love her at least as much as I love my departed spouse. I never imagined that it was possible to love two women like this.  I don't claim that I love both equally, and I won't say whom I love the most, but I do now finally understand that it is fully possible to do so.  If I had both of them in mortality at the same time, I would willingly burn myself out loving them both as equally as possible. And I'm not talking about the physical aspects that everyone gets so hung up about.  I'm 66 years old, no longer a teenager who thinks of sex every ten minutes.  Love is so much more than that.

 

I'm not good with putting my point across. I'm sorry I implied that you would worry about it. I was trying to show that the man doesn't lose the women he's been married to. But the women in the hereafter will lose the men she married. She can't be married to multiple men, unless I'm wrong about this. ETA: Oops, just noticed that Wendy has been sealed to another man, and maybe you won't be with two wives in eternity. But why can't Wendy have you both? It's very complicated isn't it? So you were married for this life only? And I do remember posting during the passing of your first wife and how very difficult that was for you. I'm happy you & Wendy found each other and get to share the rest of your lives together. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Tacenda

[Eek!]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 But the women in the hereafter will lose the men she married. She can't be married to multiple men, unless I'm wrong about this.

If God is good and God is fair and God is no respecter of persons, then I can't believe heaven is in some ways a hell for most of the people who make it there (and losing -  being separated from - someone you love would be a little bit of hell). 

Here is one possibility:  Joseph Smith may have never finished that part of his work.  He may have been moving in the direction of something that would have included the possibility of multiple husbands when he was killed.   That possibility is suggested in verse 42 of Section 132: 

"I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."

The implication is, if it HAD BEEN "appointed undo her by the holy anointing", then it would NOT be adultery for her to be with another man.

And we know from the last verse of Section 132 that there was more to come on the subject of plural marriage.  Ever wonder what that might be?: 

"And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present."

One of the patterns Joseph Smith seemed to follow was this:  First you learn it, then you do it, then you teach it.  That is the pattern he followed with plurality of wives.

Joseph may have been following a similar pattern regarding plurality of husbands.  Presumably he knew about it, because he did it (was married to women who were currently married to other men), but far as I know he never got to the teaching phase.

Could plurality of husbands have been one of the ideas that he believed would cause some of his followers to "fly to pieces like glass"?

Anyway my main point is that a God who is good and fair and no respecter of persons is not going to have a system that cheats his daughters for the benefit of his sons.   And we don't have enough pieces of the puzzle yet to figure it all out, but He does and imo we can be confident that He already has. 

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Eek!

[juliann]

Quote

 But the women in the hereafter will lose the men she married. She can't be married to multiple men, unless I'm wrong about this.

Just curious, but how can you possibly have participated in years of polygamy discussions and not know that women are sealed to all of their husbands after death? There is no doctrine that proxy sealings are bogus. None. Anywhere. 

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Just curious, but how can you possibly have participated in years of polygamy discussions and not know that women are sealed to all of their husbands after death? There is no doctrine that proxy sealings are bogus. None. Anywhere. 

I was aware of cases from where a woman was sealed to all of her husbands after they were dead, which was sometimes after she was dead too. 

Is it now officially pretty much the same for women as it is for men, as far as who they can be sealed to after death?

 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I was aware of cases from where a woman was sealed to all of her husbands after they were dead, which was sometimes after she was dead too. 

Is it now officially pretty much the same for women as it is for men, as far as who they can be sealed to after death?

 

It is identical after all are dead.

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It is identical after all are dead.

Very interesting... so either the church leadership has opted to "seal 'em all and let God sort 'em out", or they know (or at least suspect) something that hasn't made it into the Sunday School manual yet.  

Or maybe both. 

[juliann]

19 hours ago, Eek! said:

Very interesting... so either the church leadership has opted to "seal 'em all and let God sort 'em out", or they know (or at least suspect) something that hasn't made it into the Sunday School manual yet.  

Or maybe both. 

They backed themselves into a corner for proxy work when they decided men didn’t have to “choose” and could be sealed to as many women as they could accumulate in life. That meant that  somebody had to choose one spouse for all dead women. So not only were women being denied the blessings of multiple sealings in life, they were being denied the agency to choose themselves. So policy became to seal them to all after they all died. But that was only scrambling to another tight corner. Now polygamy advocates refuse to honor proxy sealings if it benefits women instead of only men. 

But what, in my experience, every darn one of them....bless their hearts... neglected to notice was that the directive that women had to choose one husband has been removed from the CHI. So that now only remains in their hopes and dreams. Their only option now is to diminish the efficacy of work for the dead to maintain their imagined male supremacy in the afterlife. And they do.  

 

[strappinglad]

Some think that being married implies some kind of exclusive ownership. Is the earthly existence a shadow of the heavenly one? The ownership idea suggests that the heavenly existence is a shadow of the earthly one. I don't concur .

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

They backed themselves into a corner for proxy work when they decided men didn’t have to “choose” and could be sealed to as many women as they could accumulate in life. That meant that  somebody had to choose one spouse for all dead women. So not only were women being denied the blessings of multiple sealings in life, they were being denied the agency to choose themselves. So policy became to seal them to all after they all died. But that was only scrambling to another tight corner. Now polygamy advocates refuse to honor proxy sealings if it benefits women instead of only men. 

But what, in my experience, every darn one of them....bless their hearts... neglected to notice was that the directive that women had to choose one husband has been removed from the CHI. So that now only remains in their hopes and dreams. Their only option now is to diminish the efficacy of work for the dead to maintain their imagined male supremacy in the afterlife. And they do.  

 

Yeah, I did see the bold, and wonder why you thought it should have been a given that I knew this, lol! 

[JLHPROF]

On 6/19/2018 at 3:38 PM, juliann said:

Just curious, but how can you possibly have participated in years of polygamy discussions and not know that women are sealed to all of their husbands after death? There is no doctrine that proxy sealings are bogus. None. Anywhere. 

Pres. John Taylor 

For instance, a good man dies, who has served God in righteousness all his days; the weary wheels of life stand still, and he goes to the world of spirits. He believed in the principles of justice, equity, righteousness, and truth, and that his rights would be held sacred to him by his brethren after he was gone. But some professed man of God comes to his widow, and wants to steal her away from him; he would rob the dead with impunity, under the ostensible garb of justice to her and her dead husband; he will tell her he is doing it out of pure love to them both, and he is going to exalt them in the kingdom of God. We read of the kingdom of God suffering violence; if violence is ever attempted, it is in a case of this kind.

It is bad enough to steal from a man his earthly property, his oxen, his cow, his horse, his harness, his wagon wheels, and other paraphernalia; but what think you of a man that would rob the dead of a treasure which he holds the most dear, and prized as the most precious thing he possessed on earth—his affectionate wife! Such a person will assuredly miss his figure.

You will find in the ancient laws of Israel, there were proper rules in relation to these matters; one was, that if a man died without a child, his brother or the nearest relation of the husband should take the widow; and raise up seed to her husband, that his name might be continued in Israel, and not be blotted out. Where did these laws come from? We are told they came from God. But instead of doing this, suppose he should try to steal this woman away, and rob his brother—how would he get along, I wonder, with such a case against him, at the bar of justice? The laws and ordinances that exist in the eternal world have their pattern in the things which are revealed to the children of men on earth.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Yeah, I did see the bold, and wonder why you thought it should have been a given that I knew this, lol! 

Because we mention it pretty much every time this topic comes up for several years now.

Not saying you couldn't have missed it multiple times.  Just saying that is why the expectation exists.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Pres. John Taylor 

For instance, a good man dies, who has served God in righteousness all his days; the weary wheels of life stand still, and he goes to the world of spirits. He believed in the principles of justice, equity, righteousness, and truth, and that his rights would be held sacred to him by his brethren after he was gone. But some professed man of God comes to his widow, and wants to steal her away from him; he would rob the dead with impunity, under the ostensible garb of justice to her and her dead husband; he will tell her he is doing it out of pure love to them both, and he is going to exalt them in the kingdom of God. We read of the kingdom of God suffering violence; if violence is ever attempted, it is in a case of this kind.

It is bad enough to steal from a man his earthly property, his oxen, his cow, his horse, his harness, his wagon wheels, and other paraphernalia; but what think you of a man that would rob the dead of a treasure which he holds the most dear, and prized as the most precious thing he possessed on earth—his affectionate wife! Such a person will assuredly miss his figure.

You will find in the ancient laws of Israel, there were proper rules in relation to these matters; one was, that if a man died without a child, his brother or the nearest relation of the husband should take the widow; and raise up seed to her husband, that his name might be continued in Israel, and not be blotted out. Where did these laws come from? We are told they came from God. But instead of doing this, suppose he should try to steal this woman away, and rob his brother—how would he get along, I wonder, with such a case against him, at the bar of justice? The laws and ordinances that exist in the eternal world have their pattern in the things which are revealed to the children of men on earth.

Not sure of your point, but this more or less proves Juliann's...unless you think another woman being sealed to an already sealed man is attempting to steal that husband from his first wife.  One sealing does not invalidate another.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not sure of your point, but this more or less proves Juliann's...unless you think another woman being sealed to an already sealed man is attempting to steal that husband from his first wife.  One sealing does not invalidate another.

I would say that John Taylor here clearly indicates that a second husband cannot expect to remain with a wife who was sealed previously to a worthy husband.

Due to polygamy past there has never been such a statement made in reverse.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I would say that John Taylor here clearly indicates that a second husband cannot expect to remain with a wife who was sealed previously to a worthy husband.

Due to polygamy past there has never been such a statement made in reverse.

I am sure he thought of it that way.

But it makes no sense to say a second husband can steal a wife, but a second wife cannot steal a husband.  Only if you view your wives and children as having a different type of humanity than the humanity of men, such that they can be treated as property where men cannot, but remain fully independent of their spouses as individuals would it be logical.