Elder Oaks

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

“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.”

"I willingly gave myself to purchase to glorious a reward."

Makes "assigned" seem not quite so bad.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

I don't feel comfortable assuming their beliefs. I don't read that quote to require a belief that she would be a second wife throughout eternity. 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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?

No idea on any of that. 

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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?

 

I believe the ordinances have validity. I just don't think that means it's permanent. We're taught that the ordinance is a promise, a covenant. I think it's a promise that exaltation will not be denied to us. I do believe there is an advantage to those in the Spirit World who are sealed. I don't believe that requires that in the Resurrection and in the Celestial Kingdom those same sealings be in effect.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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

I agree.  It makes even less sense to me than every child under the age of eight being destined for the CK simply because of their death while a nine year old might be a candidate for the Telestial if they refused to repent and accept Christ's Atonement  if we are judged on our full mortal experience or level of progression both pre and post death at all.

Given she was 14 at the time and may have been hesitant to ask for clarification and that the idea of exaltation itself and eternal marriage through sealings were new concepts that likely weren't fleshed out as they are now (which is still pretty minimal), I suspect there was a lot of filling in the gaps by Helen with her own understanding.  (Not a bad thing, there is probably not much of a significant difference between hers and the understanding of someone living now when talking about what exaltation and sealings actually are imo).

Edited October 25, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"I willingly gave myself to purchase to glorious a reward."

Makes "assigned" seem not quite so bad.

A willing choice is worse than being told what to do?

Edited October 25, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

A willing choice is worse than being told what to do?

No. 

But a 14 year old willingly giving herself to a 37 year old to purchase salvation... not great. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by rockpond

[Hamba Tuhan]

35 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Perhaps that meant that her example of faith would lead those members to endure faithfully to the end.

That’s roughly how I’ve always understood her claim. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I believe the ordinances have validity. I just don't think that means it's permanent. We're taught that the ordinance is a promise, a covenant. I think it's a promise that exaltation will not be denied to us. I do believe there is an advantage to those in the Spirit World who are sealed. I don't believe that requires that in the Resurrection and in the Celestial Kingdom those same sealings be in effect.

When we take into account that there are billions of potential partners out there (if we include as our original potential partners everyone of the opposite sex) and our mortal choice of spouses gets narrowed to a pool of less than a hundred  and more likely a dozen or two for most people because we live in a certain time and place (so even if you removed cultural expectations and social 'rules' about age and status and just measure those you have eye contact with, it still limits the pool of candidates in mortality to hundreds or thousands), that implies to me that it is not that hard to become someone's eternal "one and only" (Iow, celestial people are easily satisfied and able to deeply love other celestial people and won't be insisting on unique combination of qualities that might only be found in a handful of that billion) if we accept that most of us will be with those we married in our mortal lives and we won't be trading out for a better match.  If this is true, unless there is something really groundshakingly important about mortal marriage (which given the frequency of divorce or other forms of marriage failure seems unlikely), it seems to me it would be a relatively easy thing to find other spouses for those married in mortality if for some reason it was necessary (such as eternal marriage needing and desired to only be done with one other person), just as widows and widowers are capable of finding other spouses to love as well as they loved their first spouses.

I get why it feels like it would be betraying the principle of eternal marriage to consider the idea we might all get reshuffled in the next life, but why not given how romantic love works in this life?  The desire to be with our spouses eternally comes because, imo, we have invested work and sacrifice into the relationship itself and that has led it to be different than all the other types of relationships we have...but if we have eternity and perfect abilities, what is to prevent us from investing the same level of effort and connection into a marriage relationship with someone else just as it happens when people remarry after death here?

Now there may be something else going on with mortal marriage that makes it sacrosanct, but that seems unlikely given our teaching that anyone deprived of it can receive the same blessings through marriage in the next life.  And if there isn't, then I don't see why everyone is so certain that mortal marriages are set in stone, even those sealed.  We will all be perfect adults of eternal age, so I don't see the parent child sealing as forever identical to the age attached generally biological relationship we have here.  We will all be of God's family, so that places us eternally with our family members as family whether or not marriages and parent-child relationships stay the same.

Otoh, death of one's spouse is considered the worst stressor on life stress scales (though I suspect there may be rarer occurrences than those usually listed that are worse for an individual), so those bonds once established can be very strong (often are not though or there would be no divorce).  Perhaps even strong enough to necessitate for true happiness, it must be our mortal marriages that become our eternal marriages.  If this applies to all strong, loving mortal marriages, then this implies to me that polygyny and polyandry will both exist (unless there is truly something inherent in women that prevents them from loving more than one man at a time and even if in mortality, they believe they loved a dead spouse as much as a living one or the reverse, somehow that love gets turned off and they can only love one man eternally...which would mean that women are very different in eternity than mortality).  And if polyandry and polygyny both exist among perfect individuals, then there is no need to worry about who is married to whom or when.  It may seem like total chaotic complexity to consider that, but if God can manage creating a universe with all its infinite parts balanced to create life, then it seems to me dealing with complexities of family relationships will be relatively easy.

In summary, I find it difficult to imagine that 100 years of mortality has more effect on our eternal relationships than the eternities that preceded mortality or the eternities that follow it.  So this leaves me at thinking we really don't have a clue, but God has promised we will be with him and our loved ones (and that is the eternal family I imagine I am being promised) so I can trust him that the rest will be much more magnificent than I can imagine.

I am looking forward to being an eternal sister to my mortal son and daughter and my parents, I like the idea of having the hangups of caregiver-dependent relationship removed.  I don't feel any need for our eternal family to be with me as parent and they as children....especially given they would be parents in their own family if so.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No. 

But a 14 year old willingly giving herself to a 37 year old to purchase salvation... not great. 

Then why did you say "makes assigned not seem so bad"?

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

When we take into account that there are billions of potential partners out there (if we include as our original potential partners everyone of the opposite sex) and our mortal choice of spouses gets narrowed to a pool of less than a hundred  and more likely a dozen or two for most people because we live in a certain time and place (so even if you removed cultural expectations and social 'rules' about age and status and just measure those you have eye contact with, it still limits the pool of candidates in mortality to hundreds or thousands), that implies to me that it is not that hard to become someone's eternal "one and only" (Iow, celestial people are easily satisfied and able to deeply love other celestial people and won't be insisting on unique combination of qualities that might only be found in a handful of that billion) if we accept that most of us will be with those we married in our mortal lives and we won't be trading out for a better match.  If this is true, unless there is something really groundshakingly important about mortal marriage (which given the frequency of divorce or other forms of marriage failure seems unlikely), it seems to me it would be a relatively easy thing to find other spouses for those married in mortality if for some reason it was necessary (such as eternal marriage needing and desired to only be done with one other person), just as widows and widowers are capable of finding other spouses to love as well as they loved their first spouses.

I get why it feels like it would be betraying the principle of eternal marriage to consider the idea we might all get reshuffled in the next life, but why not given how romantic love works in this life?  The desire to be with our spouses eternally comes because, imo, we have invested work and sacrifice into the relationship itself and that has led it to be different than all the other types of relationships we have...but if we have eternity and perfect abilities, what is to prevent us from investing the same level of effort and connection into a marriage relationship with someone else just as it happens when people remarry after death here?

Now there may be something else going on with mortal marriage that makes it sacrosanct, but that seems unlikely given our teaching that anyone deprived of it can receive the same blessings through marriage in the next life.  And if there isn't, then I don't see why everyone is so certain that mortal marriages are set in stone, even those sealed.  We will all be perfect adults of eternal age, so I don't see the parent child sealing as forever identical to the age attached generally biological relationship we have here.  We will all be of God's family, so that places us eternally with our family members as family whether or not marriages and parent-child relationships stay the same.

Otoh, death of one's spouse is considered the worst stressor on life stress scales (though I suspect there may be rarer occurrences than those usually listed that are worst), so those bonds once established can be very strong (often are not though or there would be no divorce).  Perhaps even strong enough to necessitate for true happiness, it must be our mortal marriages that become our eternal marriages.  If this applies to all strong, loving mortal marriages, then this implies to me that polygyny and polyandry will both exist (unless there is truly something inherent in women that prevents them from loving more than one man at a time and even if in mortality, they believe they loved a dead spouse as much as a living one or the reverse, somehow that love gets turned off and they can only love one man eternally...which would mean that women are very different in eternity than mortality).  And if polyandry and polygyny both exist among perfect individuals, then there is no need to worry about who is married to whom or when.  It may seem like total chaotic complexity to consider that, but if God can manage creating a universe with all its infinite parts balanced to create life, then it seems to me dealing with complexities of family relationships will be relatively easy.

In summary, I find it difficult to imagine that 100 years of mortality has more effect on our eternal relationships than the eternities that preceded mortality or the eternities that follow it.  So this leaves me at thinking we really don't have a clue, but God has promised we will be with him and our loved ones, so I can trust him that the rest will be much more magnificent than I can imagine.

So wise! I love this. 

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

Then why did you say "makes assigned not seem so bad"?

Because I think the idea that a 14 year old girl said she was willing to give herself to a 37 year old man to purchase salvation for her family makes being assigned not seem as bad.

Neither is good, IMO. 

(And let’s remember that we’re talking about a word choice that I admitted was poor and immediately changed when Hamba pointed it out.)

[rockpond]

So, if we think that there is a good chance that mortal marriages aren’t set in stone and that the sealing ordinance is more of an individual thing that doesn’t necessarily seal you to the person on the other side of the alter...

Could someone then remind me why we can’t just let gay couples marry?  They could then get that sealing ordinance for themselves, have the great life experiences of marriage and romantic love, and then get “re-shuffled” in the hereafter when they are turned straight?

[rockpond]

Also, to the original point that sent us down this sub-thread...

Unless we are willing to tell Pres. Oaks, Sister June Oaks, and Sister Kristen Oaks that despite their sealing ordinances, they cannot possibly together forever as spouses than we do still hold some belief in polygamy. 

[strappinglad]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

So we don’t really know if “assigned” is the incorrect word to use.  

Should we use the word " given " like the Lord does when he speaks of David's wives ?

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Should we use the word " given " like the Lord does when he speaks of David's wives ?

Sure.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Because I think the idea that a 14 year old girl said she was willing to give herself to a 37 year old man to purchase salvation for her family makes being assigned not seem as bad.

Neither is good, IMO. 

(And let’s remember that we’re talking about a word choice that I admitted was poor and immediately changed when Hamba pointed it out.)

I guess you are using the phrase "not seem so bad" differently than I do.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

So, if we think that there is a good chance that mortal marriages aren’t set in stone and that the sealing ordinance is more of an individual thing that doesn’t necessarily seal you to the person on the other side of the alter...

Could someone then remind me why we can’t just let gay couples marry?  They could then get that sealing ordinance for themselves, have the great life experiences of marriage and romantic love, and then get “re-shuffled” in the hereafter when they are turned straight?

I assume that ordinances need to be done for the right reason (a desire to be in an eternal marriage as instructed by God and to be prepared for eternal marriage by living eternal principles to the fullest of our knowledge).  Using an ordinance meant to bind a man and a woman with placeholders of the same sex does not seem to me to be likely creating an environment that develops readiness for celestial marriage where if the placeholders are of the opposite sex there may still be things they can work on together as a man and woman that develops in both of them the ability to have an eternal marriage relationship with the opposite sex if by chance they do not end up with their original partner.  This assumes imo there is an eternal quality of womanhood all women share (or at least all women willing to enter into eternal marriage) and an eternal quality of manhood, etc.  As to what that might be, I don't know, but it seems to be doctrinal.

It would be like being baptized having the intent to never attend church or act in the covenants that baptism is holds for us and then at death, expect to be allowed to be seen as part of the Church of the Firstborn and to take full part based solely participating in the baptism with no baptismal covenantal behaviour since then.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Calm

[flameburns623]

17 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/

I cannot support the call to stifle freedom of speech for anyone.  And even civil liability for purported harm should have to meet a very high standard of evidence and a clear link between cause and effect.  Ultimately,  religious institutions are voluntary organizations: no one is obliged to join or to retain membership. 

Historically,  the Abrahamic religious traditions have consistently taught that same sex relationships are rooted in moral failings. There is no clear precedent in canonized Scripture or established traditional dogma providing for the possibility of enduring loving relationships between persons of the same gender. A few Catholic, Jewish, and Mainline Protestant theologians believe they have teased-out reasons from the established body of Holy Writ and Tradition for acceptance of LGBTQIA  persons; but their reasoning has yet to attain universal acceptance even within their respective broad faith communities. 

The LDS  Church is unique among Christian and Jewish denominations insofar as we retain an "open" canon, with leaders who bear certain charisms or gifts of a revelatory nature.

We can therefore expect additions and changes to our teaching over time. Some of those changes may ultimately include re-imagining God's plan for families in a direction which makes provision for LGBTQ persons. At present, however, our leadership are holding firm to very traditional understandings about this issue.

Those who cannot accept this can try to reason with leaders, based upon present evidence, that the will of the Lord should be sought and further light be given, in order that gay, lesbian, transgender persons be more fully included in the spiritual life of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 

The alternative,  if one cannot accept the present state of affairs and feels those leaders too intransigent to be reasoned with, is to humbly,  prayerfully,  thoughtfully evaluate if one believes the leaders of the CoJCoLDS are truly Divine mouthpieces. And, if one cannot so conclude, to decide where one should go from there. 

Forcing LDS General Authorities (or other religious leaders) to accede to one's private views is to short-circuit the conversation.  It is unlikely to succed in a nation with constitutionally protected civil liberties; and IMHO is not likely to achieve the desired outcome if it could be enacted. 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, USU78 said:

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.

Like I said, your thoughts on suicide, and responsibility in how we treat others, are disturbing. I've got nothing nicer to say so I'll remain quiet  

Edited October 25, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I assume that ordinances need to be done for the right reason (a desire to be in an eternal marriage as instructed by God and to be prepared for eternal marriage by living eternal principles to the fullest of our knowledge).  Using an ordinance meant to bind a man and a woman with placeholders of the same sex does not seem to me to be likely creating an environment that develops readiness for celestial marriage where if the placeholders are of the opposite sex there may still be things they can work on together as a man and woman that develops in both of them the ability to have an eternal marriage relationship with the opposite sex if by chance they do not end up with their original partner.  This assumes imo there is an eternal quality of womanhood all women share (or at least all women willing to enter into eternal marriage) and an eternal quality of manhood, etc.  As to what that might be, I don't know, but it seems to be doctrinal.

It would be like being baptized having the intent to never attend church or act in the covenants that baptism is holds for us and then at death, expect to be allowed to be seen as part of the Church of the Firstborn and to take full part based solely participating in the baptism with no baptismal covenantal behaviour since then.

Per the preceding discussion, the sealing ordinance doesn't actually bind man to woman, so I am asking from that assumption.

So, if it doesn't bind man and woman and has the potential to be a placeholder for anyone, and if you have an LGBT member who knows they can't sustain a marriage in this life with someone of the opposite sex than it seems to make sense that they could bring their (same-sex) partner to the temple and participate in the sealing ordinance.  This would allow them to gain those important lessons and growth from a marriage while also enjoying romantic love which President Packer called "deeply and significantly religious".

To your point, we're left with the question of whether the claimed eternal qualities of maleness and femaleness make a same-sex marriage in mortality a stumbling block to enjoying an opposite-sex marriage in the eternities?

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

To your point, we're left with the question of whether the claimed eternal qualities of maleness and femaleness make a same-sex marriage in mortality a stumbling block to enjoying an opposite-sex marriage in the eternities?

Thanks for engaging. It is hard to know when/if posters are sincere in questions.  Too often it feels like they are just playing, trying to just ask gotcha questions, or trying to make another point of view look stupid, even blatant mocking.  I believe all of us are vulnerable to falling into that. I know I sure am, a tendency I do try to resist.  And I am not always good at discerning intent in others, So thanks for sticking with it when I bristle. 

I believe the answer to be yes. I do not believe that obstacle would necessarily be insurmountable for those who are sincerely willing to accept plan in the next life.  But i do believe that the obstacle is sufficient that it would be unwise to endorse such a course of action broadly.  Especially because I can't imagine how this would be seen as anything more than a "second-class citizen" situation. Wouldn't there still be the feeling that same-sex sealings would be less valid because we didn't believe that they even had the potential to be eternal? Would this really sayisfy most? 

But even more, this proposal goes to the significant concern I have about the majority of LGBT individuals who are bisexual or will experience some shift in their orientation (generally toward bisexuality or heterosexuality.)  I believe it is important for them, especially as youth, that the doctrine of gender complimentary is taught clearly and unambiguously. That means that we recognize with love and acceptance all those who experience a variety of moral challenges that complicate their experience. And at the same time we hold firm the hope and faith that either in this life or the next, God will provide a way for all to receive the blessings of eternal marriage. 

While I don't know that most of God's children will actually be with our mortal spouse, especially because of the great number who were not in marriage arrangements throughout human history (single, died before marriage, early deaths leading to serial polygyny or polyandry, divorce in all it's forms, concubines, concurrent polygamy, slavery, etc. etc.), I am not convinced that it is fair to reduce the sealing ordinance/sealed relationship to nothing more than a "place holder."  

Like I said before, I'm not claiming to speak for God. He has others to do that for Him. I'm just sharing my personal perspective and beliefs. I admit I am likely wrong about a great number of things, and this may be one of them. 

 

[Calm]

Quote

am not convinced that it is fair to reduce the sealing ordinance/sealed relationship to nothing more than a "place holder."  

Neither am I.  I chose the term to discuss a theoretical position in as simple a way as possible.  I think it is likely much more important than just a practice run, but not in the mood to go into pages of possibilities.  I do believe the process is important to learning who we are and those we marry are part of that process, they aren't just mirrors for us. That relationship becomes part of who we are.  It makes sense to me that relationship continues if it is compatible with eternal progression, even if there is a possibility the relationship is not ultimately celestial marriage.

If the point of life is to find out if we want to make the sacrifices and experience the personal growth it takes to become fully one with the Father, then it seems counterproductive to wave the requirements that put us in the position where we can learn what is most important to us, that in fact give us opportunities to make choices (including very, very hard ones) and learn from our experiences if those choices are the ones we truly want to keep making or others are better for us.

Allowing same sex sealings in this life if they must be rejected in order to achieve exaltation seems to fall in the counterproductive category to me.  I certainly may be wrong and God may see the choosing to bind oneself in marriage to a loved one no matter who they are as moving closer to exaltation than waiting until one believes the binding is of a relationship that could move into eternity as a couple, but at this point I think revelation points to the latter as the more effective exaltation choice (just as I think legal marriage is more effective than a man and woman just living together due to the covenant they make to each other and society).

 

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

Thanks for engaging. It is hard to know when/if posters are sincere in questions.  Too often it feels like they are just playing, trying to just ask gotcha questions, or trying to make another point of view look stupid, even blatant mocking.  I believe all of us are vulnerable to falling into that. I know I sure am, a tendency I do try to resist.  And I am not always good at discerning intent in others, So thanks for sticking with it when I bristle. 

I believe the answer to be yes. I do not believe that obstacle would necessarily be insurmountable for those who are sincerely willing to accept plan in the next life.  But i do believe that the obstacle is sufficient that it would be unwise to endorse such a course of action broadly.  Especially because I can't imagine how this would be seen as anything more than a "second-class citizen" situation. Wouldn't there still be the feeling that same-sex sealings would be less valid because we didn't believe that they even had the potential to be eternal? Would this really sayisfy most? 

But even more, this proposal goes to the significant concern I have about the majority of LGBT individuals who are bisexual or will experience some shift in their orientation (generally toward bisexuality or heterosexuality.)  I believe it is important for them, especially as youth, that the doctrine of gender complimentary is taught clearly and unambiguously. That means that we recognize with love and acceptance all those who experience a variety of moral challenges that complicate their experience. And at the same time we hold firm the hope and faith that either in this life or the next, God will provide a way for all to receive the blessings of eternal marriage. 

While I don't know that most of God's children will actually be with our mortal spouse, especially because of the great number who were not in marriage arrangements throughout human history (single, died before marriage, early deaths leading to serial polygyny or polyandry, divorce in all it's forms, concubines, concurrent polygamy, slavery, etc. etc.), I am not convinced that it is fair to reduce the sealing ordinance/sealed relationship to nothing more than a "place holder."  

Like I said before, I'm not claiming to speak for God. He has others to do that for Him. I'm just sharing my personal perspective and beliefs. I admit I am likely wrong about a great number of things, and this may be one of them. 

 

1.  Like you, I try to engage sincerely... most of the time.  I'm not perfect, but I appreciate the board more when we manage to stay respectful and to listen to one another.  I don't always model that but I always WISH that I would. 

2.  I agree with your point about it being a "second class" marriage if we were certain that it was going to not continue in the next life.

3.  Since most of our LGBT youth in the church are raised by male-female couples, I don't worry that they are missing out on that role model.

4.  I certainly hope/pray/believe that my sealing with my wife is not just a placeholder.  But I feel that when we start talking about God making things right, setting things in order in the next life, and potentially dissolving/altering many of the sealings that were done here in the temple... for me that removes one of the reasons for which the sealing ordinance is denied to same-sex couples.

[bluebell]

20 hours ago, rockpond said:

Also, to the original point that sent us down this sub-thread...

Unless we are willing to tell Pres. Oaks, Sister June Oaks, and Sister Kristen Oaks that despite their sealing ordinances, they cannot possibly together forever as spouses than we do still hold some belief in polygamy. 

Exactly.  

I don't understand the angst with this issue when the subject comes up.  Are there members who don't know that we believe polygamy will exist in the Celestial Kingdom?  Every now and then a poster will come in here like they are revealing some mystery, but I don't see how this is at all controversial.  Our doctrine is that polygamy is acceptable when God says it is but monogamy is the norm.  The sealing policy matches our doctrine.

Likewise, I don't understand people who try to argue that because we believe that polygamy will exist in the Celestial kingdom that means that everyone will have to be polygamous.  That doesn't match our doctrine.

[Calm]

I think for me it is just silly to say one is at that moment engaging in polygamy with a dead spouse if remarried because there is usually no interaction between the living spouse and the dead one at that time in their lives.  The relationship is in the past and looked forward to in the future, but is it ongoing?

I know there are those with dead spouses who feel the relationship is ongoing, so I am not claiming my reaction is the only rational one.  It is just how I see/feel about the situation.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think for me it is just silly to say one is engaging in polygamy with a dead spouse because there is usually no interaction between the living spouse and the dead one at that time in their lives.  The relationship is on the past and looked forward to in the future, but is it ongoing?

I know there are those with dead spouses who feel the relationship is ongoing, so I am not claiming my reaction is the only rationale one.  It is just how I see/feel about the situation.

I agree. I don't think that Pres. Oaks is a polygamist just because he's sealed to two women.  He might become a polygamist in the next world but right now he's a monogamist.