Elder Oaks

[kllindley]

Just now, Ouagadougou said:

Temple sealing = marriage for time and all eternity to include after this life as a "spiritual wife" (eternal resurrected being).

Source? Or is this your own personal meaning?

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No. I don't. I think that's obvious. 

Are you actually asking what I believe?

Yes, I am asking a sincere question.   

I haven't been following this thread closely, so I'm sorry if you've already made it clear what you believe.

But do you feel all sealings are not considered equal (or that Joseph considered them not to be equal)?  I'm referring to husband/wife sealings, just to be clear.

Edited October 24, 2018 by ALarson

[kllindley]

Just now, ALarson said:

Yes, I am asking a sincere question.   

I haven't been following this thread closely, so I'm sorry if you've already made it clear what you believe.

But do you feel all sealings are not considered equal (or that Joseph considered them not to be equal)?

No, I don't believe all sealings are equal. I also don't believe that Joseph considered them to be equal. I believe that there are reasons to be sealed apart from being an celestial marriage unit. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No, I don't believe all sealings are equal. I also don't believe that Joseph considered them to be equal. I believe that there are reasons to be sealed apart from being an celestial marriage unit. 

Oh, I agree that there are different types of sealings (child/parent....husband/wife.....even the male to male sealings that were done in the early days of the church).

But I do believe that all husband and wife sealings are considered to be the same.  Otherwise, how does that work for the woman who is only sealed to one man (who is sealed to other women).   Is she not as important as the first wife?

How do you explain Joseph sealing himself to other wives prior to his sealing to Emma?

I am honestly wanting to hear your thoughts on this....thanks....

Edited October 24, 2018 by ALarson

[Ouagadougou]

19 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Source? Or is this your own personal meaning?

https://www.fairmormon.org/temples/practices/eternal-marriagesealing

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

No. I was stating that the doctrine of sealing is more than just husband and wife for eternity. 

I don't know. That is not my point. I was suggesting that there is a clear belief in letting God figure out how sealings organize heaven.

I didn't suggest it did. That is not my point. I was suggesting that there is a clear belief in letting God figure out how sealings organize heaven.

And I don't read section 132 to necessitate a man + wives view of eternity. 

I asked a serious question about post manifesto teaching about the idea of polygamous relationships in the celestial kingdom. I don't believe it. I don't believe it's been taught recently enough and consistently enough to qualify as doctrine. You seem to believe otherwise. 

So, based on your current understanding of Church doctrine, do you believe that there will be polygamous marriages in the eternities?  Or that each man will only have one wife and each woman will only have one husband?

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, based on your current understanding of Church doctrine, do you believe that there will be polygamous marriages in the eternities?  Or that each man will only have one wife and each woman will only have one husband?

My personal belief is that there will not be polygamous marriages in the Celestial Kingdom. One husband, one wife. I base this on my understanding of the eternal complementarity of gender, which does not allow for same-sex marriages or marriages of more than two individuals. 

[kllindley]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I agree that there are different types of sealings (child/parent....husband/wife.....even the male to male sealings that were done in the early days of the church).

But I do believe that all husband and wife sealings are considered to be the same.  Otherwise, how does that work for the woman who is only sealed to one man (who is sealed to other women).   Is she not as important as the first wife?

I don't think it has anything to do with importance. 

 

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How do you explain Joseph sealing himself to other wives prior to his sealing to Emma?

I have no explanation for that. It doesn't surprise me or bother me though. I suspect Joseph did not see these sealings as equal to his relationship with Emma. I think he assumed that relationship was already eternal and that the idea of polygamy that God was asking him to practice was categorically different.  I don't make the assumption that he saw things the way we later came to see them. 

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I am honestly wanting to hear your thoughts on this....thanks....

Maybe I can't adequately express the understanding I've come to on this, but I'm willing to try. 

[kllindley]

21 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/temples/practices/eternal-marriagesealing

Odd. This webpage doesn't have a single occurrence of "spiritual wife."

It's almost like you aren't serious here.

[strappinglad]

All contracts made here in mortality are null and void in heaven , UNLESS they are sealed by the Holy Spirit. Except for special circumstances , the sealing in the temple is promisory only, same with baptism for that matter. What happens to those contracts sealed by the Holy Spirit is well above my pay grade.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I don't think it has anything to do with importance. 

 

I have no explanation for that. It doesn't surprise me or bother me though. I suspect Joseph did not see these sealings as equal to his relationship with Emma. I think he assumed that relationship was already eternal and that the idea of polygamy that God was asking him to practice was categorically different.  I don't make the assumption that he saw things the way we later came to see them. 

Maybe I can't adequately express the understanding I've come to on this, but I'm willing to try. 

Thanks.  I think I understand what you are trying to express.  I actually agree with some of what you've written (I think  )

I'm not sure this works though with what's been taught.  Do you believe that Joseph just lived earthly (or physical) polygamy, but won't live it spiritually for eternity?  

One more question (for now...ha)....

Do you believe that Pres. Nelson (and Pres. Oaks and others) will then choose which wife to be with in the eternities (if they choose to be with him) and won't be with both of their earthly wives?

Edited October 25, 2018 by ALarson

[Ouagadougou]

27 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Odd. This webpage doesn't have a single occurrence of "spiritual wife."

It's almost like you aren't serious here.

3.  Joining in celestial marriage. This element qualifies you to live together as husband and wife under the laws of the land. It is here that you are united forever, becoming one flesh before the Lord and forming a new family unit that, if you are faithful and obedient, will last forever.

 

BTW, I don't like and/or believe in polygamy.  Just pointing out that President Nelson is sealed to more than one wife; therefore, he, according to LDS doctrine, will have two wives in the next life.  

Edited October 25, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[USU78]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm in favor of silencing some religious leaders that don't even care to look into the subject they are rejecting. Or the people they are rejecting, or excluding from membership in the community or religion they are leaders in. They are so out of touch with the fact that it is biology, not mental illness, and certainly not a disease that we have the LGBTQ communities.

They are breaking the commandment to not take the Lord's name in vain. They are speaking for God/Jesus and saying things that are false. The past LDS leaders would constantly harp that it was a choice for these people and they are not born that way. Well, turns out science proved that wrong. Just like we are now saying the past leaders got wrong the race and the priesthood, there will come a day that the younger generation that have had classes in biology will have to shake their heads and disagree. And instead will include the 6% or whatever percent of the population. Include them on the same playing field. One day it will come to that. 

And it will have been all for not, that these policies were put in place, and will have harmed rather than loved humans on this earth. Loved with the fullest extent of the word, not conditionally. Acceptance not partial acceptance. It's time to silence these leaders and ask and plead for leaders that actually do have a conduit to the spirit. And do the leg work and not bury their heads. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2018/10/mormon-discussion-premium-crystal-scott-genetics-of-sex-and-gender/

Of course you are in favor of censoring Mormons.

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, kllindley said:

My personal belief is that there will not be polygamous marriages in the Celestial Kingdom. One husband, one wife. I base this on my understanding of the eternal complementarity of gender, which does not allow for same-sex marriages or marriages of more than two individuals. 

Thanks.

I'm open to polygamous marriages in the eternities but only where all have the freedom to consent on equal grounds.

This is where I struggle with our current practices:

If we go back to the example of President Oaks:  His first wife, June,  reportedly communicated to her daughters (while she was battling cancer) that she approved of her then 66 year old husband remarrying.  While she died not knowing who he would take as a second wife at least she approved conceptually.  Likewise, President Oaks' has publicly stated that Kristen McMain Oaks was okay with becoming a second wife:

"It was also important to both of us that Kristen felt comfortable about becoming a “second wife.” She understood the eternal doctrine of relationships. She was becoming part of an existing eternal family unit, and she has always been eager to honor and include June."  (http://www.ldsliving.com/How-President-Oaks-s-Daughters-Helped-Him-Find-His-Wife-Kristen-The-Sweet-Way-He-Knew-It-was-Meant-to-Be/s/88320)

So, in the case of President Oaks, it seems both his wives consented to multiple sealings.  As to their personal beliefs as to what that would look like, we don't know.  It's tough for me to believe that either of them are NOT envisioning an eternity with him, as is promised in the sealing ordinance.

As for President Nelson, I haven't read anything like the above article regarding Oaks' marriages.  Did Sister Dantzel Nelson consent to her husband's second marriage?  Does Sister Wendy Nelson consider herself a second wife?  Does Wendy view this as a time only marriage, that she'll find someone else in the eternities?  Or will they both be sealed to him?

The Church still teaches polygamy in terms of its doctrine (no disavowal of the principle of plural marriage), temple ordinances (allowing more than one spousal sealing per person), and scripture (Section 132).  But, I agree with you that we often say:  God will work everything out.  That seems to be generic explanation to avoid dealing with the specifics.  Because, it's the particulars that make this difficult -- my grandfather was sealed to both my grandmother and my step-grandmother with exactly the same ordinance.  If we acknowledge the authority and validity of that ordinance, than my grandfather is sealed to both women.  Will one of them be willing and happy to back out and be married/sealed to someone else?

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by rockpond

[USU78]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find this disturbing. You seem to discount the impact others have on a person's suicidal ideation. Intense bullying isn't "background noise" and can have a serious negative impact on a person's consideration of suicide. Abusive family and friends, whether the abuse is physical, emotional, spiritual, verbal etc can impact on a person's self-image and impact on suicidal ideation.

I think it's dangerous to ignore the impact of others because it basically excuses bad behavior as "background noise" that really doesn't matter or drive a person towards suicide. There may not be just one cause or driver, but I suspect there is a cumulative effect when society, and especially people close to a person treats them badly because of who they are, and/or tell them they are evil, deceived by Satan, perverse, or whatever.

Do you realize that not everyone who commits suicide has a disease, or mental illness? Some people at influenced by their environment, including those people close to them, which is more than background noise. You greatly underestimate the influence bigoted behavior and rhetoric can have on a person.

You are of the opinion that the mentally ill is reliable when/if he claims in his suicide note that mean Betty didn't accept his invitation to the school dance, and that's why he's killing himself?

Since when is a mentally ill person's perception worth crediting on the subject of proximate causation?

Ridiculous argument.

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Will one of them be willing and happy to back out and be assigned to someone else?

'Assigned'???

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Assigned'???

I changed it.  But honestly, I have no idea how it will work.  Do you?  When Joseph Smith sought some of his plural wives there wasn't always courting, love, etc... just the "invitation" to become one of his wives.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When Joseph Smith sought some of his plural wives there wasn't always courting, love, etc... just the "invitation" to become one of his wives.

I don't equate invitations with assignments. Do you?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't equate invitations with assignments. Do you?

No. That’s why I changed it. But some of Joseph Smith’s “invitations” came with threats of losing their or their family’s salvation. 

But, again, I don’t know how it will work in the next life for these spouses who are sealed in polygamous marriages.  So we don’t really know if “assigned” is the incorrect word to use.  

[Calm]

Quote

losing their or their family’ssalvation. 

Was it actually phrased that way or was it more of one way to ensure the family's salvation/exaltation (which is not usually the same thing)?

Edited October 25, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was it actually phrased that way or was it more of one way to ensure the family's salvation/exaltation (which is not usually the same thing)?

I don't recall.

The prophet comes to you and says that becoming one of his spouses will guarantee your family's eternal salvation (throw in that is was commanded of God), what might that imply about the results of turning him down?

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't recall.

The prophet comes to you and says that becoming one of his spouses will guarantee your family's eternal salvation (throw in that is was commanded of God), what might that imply about the results of turning him down?

That everything would just continue as I had always imagined it would without the 'short cut' in my view.  It would be like getting to get credit for classes based on my score on a test, just because I might get credit for those classes by taking a test and therefore skipping out of it without doing the work (got an A in a speed reading HS class that way without ever having learned how to speed read because I read over the required amount with 100% comprehension without taking one lesson....those were the days my brain actually worked, of course); doesn't mean that is the only way to get credit for those classes.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Was it actually phrased that way or was it more of one way to ensure the family's salvation/exaltation (which is not usually the same thing)?

Here's the quote (written by Helen Mar Kimball):

Quote

“Joseph . . . came next morning & with my parents I heard him teach & explain the principle of Celestial marrage—after which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation & that of your father’s household & all of your kindred. This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.”

 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's the quote (written by Helen Mar Kimball):

 

That is what I thought.  It says nothing about losing salvation, nothing about not being able to achieve salvation and exaltation in the same way as her family would have been able to do if the offer was never made (as was the situation for the vast majority of member families in that time period).

It was seen by her as a short cut to a very, very desired end in my view for the rest of her family (assuming she understood correctly which I have my doubts); there was nothing that required it to become the only way to get there.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Here's the quote (written by Helen Mar Kimball):

 

I just question a simplistic assumption that the means whereby that salvation and exaltation was ensured was a single ceremony. 

Perhaps that meant that her example of faith would lead those members to endure faithfully to the end. Perhaps there is a role in the Spirit World that she was better equipped/empowered to perform due to having been sealed. I do believe that there is some advantage in the Spirit World to those who are sealed. Even if this isn't the sealing that ultimate "sticks." Is that official doctrine? Maybe not. Is it incompatible? I don't think so. Am I open to being wrong? Absolutely.