News on Plural Marriage

[juliann]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

To accept it.

It doesn't have to be twice as many women. All this proposition requires is that one more woman be worthy of exaltation than the total number of men counted so worthy. 

 

I am very curious how you continually come up with the only option being more women.  Given birth rates, it is far, far more likely that an incompetent God ends up with more men. I hope we are rapidly approaching the point where anyone creating an eternity that benefits them at the expense of others will be too embarrassed to admit it. 

[Calm]

Glitch

Edited January 4, 2021 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

19 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's a misunderstanding that exaltation requires participating in plural marriage in mortal life.

If you're claiming that polygamy is required, but might be eternal only, then the second part of my post covers that. If it's only after death that you begin polygamy, then it will require you being sealed to someone you had no earthly relationship with, and since we're taught that ordinances need to be performed in mortality (whether personally or by proxy), post-life polygamy for only-married-once people, will require massive changes to allow sealings to randoms.

If you're claiming that polygamy is not required at all*, then I agree with you.

 

*Unless specifically commanded obviously

Edited January 5, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If you're claiming that polygamy is required, but might be eternal only, then the second part of my post covers that. If it's only after death that you begin polygamy, then it will require you being sealed to someone you had no earthly relationship with, and since we're taught that ordinances need to be performed in mortality (whether personally or by proxy), post-life polygamy for only-married-once people, will require massive changes to allow sealings to randoms.

If you're claiming that polygamy is not required at all*, then I agree with you.

 

*Unless specifically commanded obviously

Why would it be "randoms"? It is more likely that spirit beings come down and share that they found no one in life or that they met in the Spirit World or met in mortality but never had a chance to create a marriage and ask people (probably their descendants if possible) to please seal them together. If (as seems likely) I marry no one in mortality I don't expect to be given a random spouse to be sealed to. There may even be a heavenly assignment of sorts but omniscience and perfect love wouldn't make such an assignment randomly.

[Stargazer]

On 1/4/2021 at 5:56 PM, juliann said:

I am very curious how you continually come up with the only option being more women.  Given birth rates, it is far, far more likely that an incompetent God ends up with more men. I hope we are rapidly approaching the point where anyone creating an eternity that benefits them at the expense of others will be too embarrassed to admit it. 

Just because more men are born than women, doesn't mean a thing when it comes to exaltation.  Exaltation is not governed by birth rate.

It just so happens that I feel that women are generally more exaltable. You can't CFR me over it, because it's my opinion. I feel that it is so, based on 69 years of observation. Why are males born slightly more frequently? I don't know, but might it be that more men are born because there needs to be more in order to compensate for the lower exaltation rate among men? Heck I don't know, I'm just speculating here. I may be wrong. You're free to believe that I am utterly wrong. But the scriptures back me up on my idea that men are less exaltable than women:

DC 121:38,39 - We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Now, when the scripture says "almost all men" does it mean the male gender or humans generically? It must be the former, because these two verses are smack dab in the middle of a discussion of improper use of the priesthood. If only a few are chosen, that suggests that in the available pool of Melchizedek priesthood holders, not all will be exalted. Of course there are women who exercise unrighteous dominion, I won't deny that, but in my experience it's men who are most afflicted by it. 

But perhaps there will be few women chosen out of those called, just as for men. I can't say, but I still think there will be more women chosen than men.

What's this about an incompetent God?

God isn't incompetent -- I'm sure you don't believe that -- but I can say with great certainty that you don't truly understand God, simply because nobody truly knows Him. In mortality, at least. If you insist that God must toe your line with respect to whether there will be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom, I must remind you of Isaiah 55:8,9:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

In other words, He's the one with the authority. Not me, and not you. If He says there will be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom, then that's the way of it. And if He says there won't be, then there won't be. But there is no scriptural warrant for believing that there won't be.

OK, next item...

Just how much more benefitted are men than women in exaltation? Or how is it that men are benefitted at the expense of women in exaltation? Even if one man has more than one wife? Just how is the husband benefitted over the wives in that case?

You seem to want absolute equality, in numbers of men and women who are exalted. One might ask, wouldn't it be nice? To which I answer, yes, it would be. I don't see how it's possible, but it would be nice.

Just for the fun of it, I just went and asked my wife, "Are women more exaltable than men?" To which she answered, "Yes, that's why there will be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom." I did not prompt her on this, she just up and responded that way immediately. So, at least one woman agrees with me on this. I feel a little better. 🙂 

 

 

[Stargazer]

On 1/4/2021 at 7:47 PM, Calm said:

Glitch

Glitch?  How disappointing, to click happily onto "Calm quoted you..." only to find "Glitch"! 

Got all excited over nothing. Darn.

Edited January 6, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

If you're claiming that polygamy is required, but might be eternal only, then the second part of my post covers that. If it's only after death that you begin polygamy, then it will require you being sealed to someone you had no earthly relationship with, and since we're taught that ordinances need to be performed in mortality (whether personally or by proxy), post-life polygamy for only-married-once people, will require massive changes to allow sealings to randoms.

If you're claiming that polygamy is not required at all*, then I agree with you.

 

*Unless specifically commanded obviously

The gospel definitely allows for post-life / pre-resurrection sealing. There is no marriage in the resurrection, as Jesus said, but as it has been said, all questions of marriage have to have been answered before one is resurrected. 

After we die, we go to the Spirit World, where we may remain for hundreds of years. During that time, don't you think that it's possible that a couple might meet and desire to be united? I know of a number of young men and young women, members of the Church or not, who died before they could marry, or even become engaged to be married. Are they going to be denied the chance of eternal companionship simply because they didn't find someone in time to be married / sealed to them in this life? 

What else do you think the Millennium is for, anyway? Just for those lucky few who manage to survive the Tribulation to have a pleasant time? There have been millions of people whose earthly record of life have been irretrievably lost due to decay, fire, or water.  There have been millions of people born into this world for whom no earthly record of life was ever made, so for them there could be no discovery of earthly records to enable proxy ordinances. It is during the Millennium that the Lord's book of life will be opened, and those records will be made available, so that the temples will be operating 24/7 making sure that all who ever lived have the opportunity to receive ALL the saving and exalting ordinances. Including marriage, and including those who were never married in this life. 

And there will be massive changes, of course, in the Millennium.  There won't be any randoms.

Oh, yes, and as for plural marriage, of course it won't be required for exaltation, but if you think there's going to be equal numbers of men and women eligible for exaltation, you're dreaming. Or, so I believe, anyway.

 

[Stargazer]

On 1/1/2021 at 8:08 PM, katherine the great said:

Innumerable seed for who? The more sexual partners a male has, the more likely he is to have more offspring. That’s a natural law, not a spiritual one. No one disputes that polygyny usually increases a man’s reproductive fitness (duh). As far as Emma being destroyed well... that didn’t seem to happen.

Not really addressing your salient points here (I may have done so already), but something I noticed when recently re-reading Joseph Smith's story vis-a-vis the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, with respect to the threat of destruction, during Moroni's visit:

PofGP, Joseph Smith - History 1:42 <== Link

42 Again, he told me, that when I got those plates of which he had spoken—for the time that they should be obtained was not yet fulfilled—I should not show them to any person; neither the breastplate with the Urim and Thummim; only to those to whom I should be commanded to show them; if I did I should be destroyed...

So Emma wasn't the only one getting this.

[juliann]

On 1/5/2021 at 5:28 PM, Stargazer said:

 

Oh, yes, and as for plural marriage, of course it won't be required for exaltation, but if you think there's going to be equal numbers of men and women eligible for exaltation, you're dreaming. Or, so I believe, anyway.

 

Because GOD could not possibly have managed that. It's just beyond his and her capability. Cause stuff just happens even when you are God. Insert huge eyeroll.

This need for polygamy is coming only from you. No matter how untenable your reasons for it are shown to be, you still have a deep need to  not only want women to have lower status and lesser importance in the eternities, but to promote it. And that might be something you might want to take a look at when you are well aware of how damaging this  idea is to so many women. 

[juliann]

On 1/5/2021 at 5:02 PM, Stargazer said:

Just because more men are born than women, doesn't mean a thing when it comes to exaltation.  Exaltation is not governed by birth rate.

It just so happens that I feel that women are generally more exaltable. You can't CFR me over it, because it's my opinion. I feel that it is so, based on 69 years of observation. Why are males born slightly more frequently? I don't know, but might it be that more men are born because there needs to be more in order to compensate for the lower exaltation rate among men? Heck I don't know, I'm just speculating here. I may be wrong. You're free to believe that I am utterly wrong. But the scriptures back me up on my idea that men are less exaltable than women:

 

 

CFR that women are "more exaltable." 

Quote

 

DC 121:38,39 - We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

Now, when the scripture says "almost all men" does it mean the male gender or humans generically? It must be the former, because these two verses are smack dab in the middle of a discussion of improper use of the priesthood. If only a few are chosen, that suggests that in the available pool of Melchizedek priesthood holders, not all will be exalted. Of course there are women who exercise unrighteous dominion, I won't deny that, but in my experience it's men who are most afflicted by it. 

 

Because in your world, the scriptures don't apply to women. I'm not surprised. 

Quote

 

But perhaps there will be few women chosen out of those called, just as for men. I can't say, but I still think there will be more women chosen than men.

What's this about an incompetent God?

God isn't incompetent -- I'm sure you don't believe that -- but I can say with great certainty that you don't truly understand God, simply because nobody truly knows Him. In mortality, at least. If you insist that God must toe your line with respect to whether there will be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom, I must remind you of Isaiah 55:8,9:

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

In other words, He's the one with the authority. Not me, and not you. If He says there will be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom, then that's the way of it. And if He says there won't be, then there won't be. But there is no scriptural warrant for believing that there won't be.

 

Wow. I've completely changed my mind now that you have quoted unrelated scripture. But I'm a woman so it doesn't apply to me. 

CFR that there will be more women chosen.

Quote

 

Just how much more benefitted are men than women in exaltation? Or how is it that men are benefitted at the expense of women in exaltation? Even if one man has more than one wife? Just how is the husband benefitted over the wives in that case?

You seem to want absolute equality, in numbers of men and women who are exalted. One might ask, wouldn't it be nice? To which I answer, yes, it would be. I don't see how it's possible, but it would be nice.

Just for the fun of it, I just went and asked my wife, "Are women more exaltable than men?" To which she answered, "Yes, that's why there will be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom." I did not prompt her on this, she just up and responded that way immediately. So, at least one woman agrees with me on this. I feel a little better. 🙂 

 

There is obviously some strange benefit to you in making unsubstantiated and undocumented insulting demeaning about women. You delight in it. You refuse to relent even though you know your assertions are only opinion and it is hurtful to women. You don't care. It is not enough for you to merely state your opinion, you must argue it while refusing to provide any documentation or support. 

 

Quote

https://www.eugeneengland.org/on-fidelity-polygamy-and-celestial-marriage     it seems to me, from reflection and from talking with Mormon women, that the devaluation of women inherent in the expectation of polygyny is destructive of their sense of identity and worth now. For instance, the argu­ment considered above, that there must be polygyny because there are more celestial women than men, sounds on the face of it complimentary to women. But if we reflect a bit, it is simply a way of saying that one good man is in some sense the equivalent of more women than one, however “righteous” those women are compared to the average man.

 

[Stargazer]

On 1/11/2021 at 8:54 PM, juliann said:

Because GOD could not possibly have managed that. It's just beyond his and her capability. Cause stuff just happens even when you are God. Insert huge eyeroll.

This need for polygamy is coming only from you. No matter how untenable your reasons for it are shown to be, you still have a deep need to  not only want women to have lower status and lesser importance in the eternities, but to promote it. And that might be something you might want to take a look at when you are well aware of how damaging this  idea is to so many women. 

A little more harsh than I would have expected from you. But I get it. 

I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you I'm right; but maybe I can persuade you to see it from my point of view, or at least understand where I'm coming from. So I will give it a shot. If I fail, I fail.

You haven't shown that my reasons for believing polygamy will be present in the eternities are untenable. All you've done is say that God wouldn't do it that way.  That's an assertion, not a reason.  You don't want things to be that way, and I sympathize. But if wishes were horses, all God's children could ride.  And there is nothing in scripture which supports your position, even tenuously. Don't you think that if God could arrange things so that the split in exaltation worthiness were exactly 50/50, then He could arrange things so that all His children would come back to him? Or isn't He capable of knowing in advance who would fail and who would not? If he were capable of knowing in advance that some would fail, then he shouldn't have sent the obvious-to-Him failures down here to fall flat on their faces, right? But we've had plenty of huge failures. Why didn't God stop them from coming? Because obviously they hadn't failed yet, and the test had to occur in order for God to be a just God.

You're the world's greatest mindreader as to my attitude towards women. You're wrong, but I don't expect you to take my word for it. And by the way, I'm not the only person who says there is a need for polygamy -- which I prefer to call plural marriage, by the way. And by the way, speaking my mind about something is not to promote it. 

Why do you think that I think that women have a lower status and lesser importance in the eternities? I am frankly mystified. Or is that what you think?

Even the celebrated misogynist Paul of Tarsus wrote: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Cor 1:11) This means that the man and the woman, or the woman and the man, are equal in the sight of God. Neither is more important than the other, not only here in mortality, but also in the eternities. And I agree with Paul. 

Am I promoting a lesser status for women? No, I am not. You seem to think that if Deity consists of one man and two or more women that this means a lessened status for the women. How would that even be possible? The terms I seem to recall are "kings and queens, priests and priestesses, gods and goddesses". Something like that, anyway. Those are titles of high status and great importance. Anyone with such titles are of highest status and greatest importance, regardless of their sex.

Here on earth, individuals are limited to one train of thought at a time and one place of being at a time. Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are not so limited, being exalted beings. Here on earth, a man in a plural marriage can spend meaningful time with only one wife at a time, leaving the others alone during that time. Not so in the eternities, where no wife is ever left alone, and every pair of them are eternal partners. This is because while we are here we live in Time, but when we are there, we will not be bound by Time. There are quadrillions of galaxies in the Universe, but God sees all of them at once. If God the Father can do that, and for that matter, see all of his children at once, what makes you think that He could not simultaneously give equal attention to all of His wives, assuming He had more than one. And perhaps He only has one, and how would I know? The question still stands.

And come to think of it, I wonder if Heavenly Mother has any say-so in any of this? We never even hear what She is doing, not one lick. Does this mean that she is of lesser importance than Heavenly Father? Does this mean that She just sits at home looking fabulous while He goes out and gets all the glory? No, I am sure she is just as busy as He is, doing work that is of equal importance and value.

The term "plural marriage" -- which should be the term used, not the objectionable term "polygamy" -- gives a clue to its true meaning. It is plural marriage because each couple in the marriage has one husband and one wife. That each couple has the same husband is beside the point -- in the eternities are parents single, no the thought makes reason stare. And in each marriage, the husband and the wife have equal status and are of equal importance. It will in fact work much better in eternity than it ever does here, even for a singular marriage. And no matter how many marriages are in a plurality.

No, I don't consider women to be of lesser status or importance. Either here or in the eternities.

[Stargazer]

On 1/11/2021 at 9:12 PM, juliann said:

CFR that women are "more exaltable." 

I already told you it's my opinion. And not just mine. CFR to you then, that men and women are equally exaltable. Can you prove your assertion? I can't prove mine, but I can sure show that it's more likely than not.

But in a sense, it would be more correct to say that they are equally exaltable. God wouldn't send anyone here who isn't capable of it. But my assertion is that more women than men will be exalted. And again, this is my opinion. Which I can't prove, but which I believe is true. I am sorry if this offends you.

On 1/11/2021 at 9:12 PM, juliann said:

Because in your world, the scriptures don't apply to women. I'm not surprised. 

I'm surprised that you could take it that way. I've never believed that the scriptures don't apply to women. But when the Lord is speaking about the priesthood, and then in connection with the priesthood states that "it is the nature and disposition of almost all men", it should be clear that He isn't talking about women. Because unless I'm greatly mistaken, women are not ordained to the priesthood -- unless one's name is Kate Kelly, of course.  As a contrary example that goes along with what I'm saying, God told Eve that He was going to greatly multiply her sorrow and her  conception (Gen. 3:16). Does that scripture apply to men? No, it doesn't, but saying so does not mean that scriptures don't apply to men.

You're trying to insinuate that I am some kind of misogynist with a poor view of women. In light of my claim that more women will be counted worthy of exaltation than men, that sounds very peculiar. 

On 1/11/2021 at 9:12 PM, juliann said:

Wow. I've completely changed my mind now that you have quoted unrelated scripture. But I'm a woman so it doesn't apply to me. 

It's not unrelated. Isaiah 55:8,9 states a fact, that God doesn't necessarily think the way we do. You think that God couldn't possibly allow plural marriage, despite its non-forbidden existence in the scriptures, and despite the divine approval of it given in DC 132. So, it appears that God doesn't necessarily think the same way you do about it. And of course it applies to you -- or why would I have quoted it?

On 1/11/2021 at 9:12 PM, juliann said:

CFR that there will be more women chosen.

It's implied in the scriptures. I've already cited the ones that are relevant. In my opinion, that's what they mean, that more women will be exalted than men.

On 1/11/2021 at 9:12 PM, juliann said:

There is obviously some strange benefit to you in making unsubstantiated and undocumented insulting demeaning about women. You delight in it. You refuse to relent even though you know your assertions are only opinion and it is hurtful to women. You don't care. It is not enough for you to merely state your opinion, you must argue it while refusing to provide any documentation or support. 

I care about truth. If something be true, why should someone be offended? And if it be not truth, then it should be opposed --- but with scripture and logic, not with desperate assertions and illogic. 

Further, if my assertions are only opinion, and this forum is all about expressing opinions, then why should I shut up? That's what you want, it appears. The subject of this thread is PLURAL MARRIAGE, for crying out loud. Are the only opinions permitted those which agree with yours, and no others?

FINALLY: It is not demeaning to women to claim that God will find more women worthy of divine exaltation than men. There is utterly no insult to women in this whatsoever. How can it hurt and demean any woman anywhere to tell her that it is more likely that God will more find her worthy of the highest approbation and status possible, than me?  How, in any rational world, can this constitute INSULT TO WOMEN? 

I get it that if more women will be exalted than men, then plural marriage in eternity is required. Since you don't like the idea of plural marriage, it is needful for you to disagree with the first premise, that of unequal exaltation statistics. But you've mixed metaphors here. You've confused my assertion of more women exaltations with my fictional misogyny. And in so doing have completely tossed out logic.

And I have provided documentation/scripture for support. Only to have it thrown back in my face as insufficient or inapplicable. Your sole support for your position is that you don't like mine. And of course you're not required to. Nor am I required to agree with you. If we disagree with each other, then there we are.

Further discussion with you on this seems pointless. You refuse to meet me on equal grounds. You're an intelligent person, and I frequently find your arguments on other topics persuasive and containing sound doctrine and logic. But on this topic you seem to labor under an emotional burden. If it's OK with you, I will bow out of this thread. I've said all I feel like saying in support of my beliefs in this matter. 

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, Stargazer said:

A little more harsh than I would have expected from you. But I get it. 

I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you I'm right; but maybe I can persuade you to see it from my point of view, or at least understand where I'm coming from. So I will give it a shot. If I fail, I fail.

You haven't shown that my reasons for believing polygamy will be present in the eternities are untenable. All you've done is say that God wouldn't do it that way.  That's an assertion, not a reason.  You don't want things to be that way, and I sympathize. But if wishes were horses, all God's children could ride.  And there is nothing in scripture which supports your position, even tenuously. Don't you think that if God could arrange things so that the split in exaltation worthiness were exactly 50/50, then He could arrange things so that all His children would come back to him? Or isn't He capable of knowing in advance who would fail and who would not? If he were capable of knowing in advance that some would fail, then he shouldn't have sent the obvious-to-Him failures down here to fall flat on their faces, right? But we've had plenty of huge failures. Why didn't God stop them from coming? Because obviously they hadn't failed yet, and the test had to occur in order for God to be a just God.

You're the world's greatest mindreader as to my attitude towards women. You're wrong, but I don't expect you to take my word for it. And by the way, I'm not the only person who says there is a need for polygamy -- which I prefer to call plural marriage, by the way. And by the way, speaking my mind about something is not to promote it. 

Why do you think that I think that women have a lower status and lesser importance in the eternities? I am frankly mystified. Or is that what you think?

Even the celebrated misogynist Paul of Tarsus wrote: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." (1 Cor 1:11) This means that the man and the woman, or the woman and the man, are equal in the sight of God. Neither is more important than the other, not only here in mortality, but also in the eternities. And I agree with Paul. 

Am I promoting a lesser status for women? No, I am not. You seem to think that if Deity consists of one man and two or more women that this means a lessened status for the women. How would that even be possible? The terms I seem to recall are "kings and queens, priests and priestesses, gods and goddesses". Something like that, anyway. Those are titles of high status and great importance. Anyone with such titles are of highest status and greatest importance, regardless of their sex.

Here on earth, individuals are limited to one train of thought at a time and one place of being at a time. Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother are not so limited, being exalted beings. Here on earth, a man in a plural marriage can spend meaningful time with only one wife at a time, leaving the others alone during that time. Not so in the eternities, where no wife is ever left alone, and every pair of them are eternal partners. This is because while we are here we live in Time, but when we are there, we will not be bound by Time. There are quadrillions of galaxies in the Universe, but God sees all of them at once. If God the Father can do that, and for that matter, see all of his children at once, what makes you think that He could not simultaneously give equal attention to all of His wives, assuming He had more than one. And perhaps He only has one, and how would I know? The question still stands.

And come to think of it, I wonder if Heavenly Mother has any say-so in any of this? We never even hear what She is doing, not one lick. Does this mean that she is of lesser importance than Heavenly Father? Does this mean that She just sits at home looking fabulous while He goes out and gets all the glory? No, I am sure she is just as busy as He is, doing work that is of equal importance and value.

The term "plural marriage" -- which should be the term used, not the objectionable term "polygamy" -- gives a clue to its true meaning. It is plural marriage because each couple in the marriage has one husband and one wife. That each couple has the same husband is beside the point -- in the eternities are parents single, no the thought makes reason stare. And in each marriage, the husband and the wife have equal status and are of equal importance. It will in fact work much better in eternity than it ever does here, even for a singular marriage. And no matter how many marriages are in a plurality.

No, I don't consider women to be of lesser status or importance. Either here or in the eternities.

Right at the get go, I'm glad there is the plural marriage for those that had a spouse die and remarry so that they can be together. But I also wonder if it's a bit one sided. What about the woman who is a widower and remarries? She isn't afforded the ability to be with both husbands? I'm not asking in an argumentative way BTW. I know your history and how you lost your previous wife, and can see how important that is for you to have the option. 

I have or had a friend in my previous ward, who probably could care less to speak with me, long story, but ever since my faith transition I guess, anyway, she never married and I'd always hope that she could join a family in the hereafter and be able to have a husband. But in retrospect what if singles can get together and marry in heaven, if we can have plural marriages I wonder why that couldn't be an option, and for women to be with both or triple previous husbands. That's where I think this gets so messy and it's extremely messy in the here and now when members divorce and remarry. 

I guess we'll have to wait and see. What I wanted to say at the first is I don't believe you put women at a lower status at all. I see what you're saying about women and more of them being in the CK top tier and the possible need for polygamy for that reason alone. So just wanted to get that out because that is what I believe about you Stargazer.

I think what Juliann, she can speak for herself, is trying to get at and I apologize if I've read it wrong, is women have been told like forever that more women will be in heaven than men because of their being better at righteousness and somehow it I guess it sort of denigrates them or puts them in their place I guess. I'm sure there is a psychological definition and I need help with that. But just now I reread a post with Eugene England so I am trying to understand I guess. I personally never liked it when men in the ward who would always put women on a pedestal and that bothered me a bit. Like how am I suppose to live up to that!?! 

Nevertheless, I feel like I need help deciphering what Juliann means. 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

, I feel like I need help deciphering what Juliann means. 

For me, it denigrates women’s efforts and commitment to be obedient to God against their ‘natural man’, carnal inclinations..  Think of it as saying women are naturally smarter than men.  Then a woman getting straight A’s is not that big of a deal as it comes easy to her, never had to study for tests, etc. while a man who got straight A’s obviously had to work hard, make sacrifices, tame his less disciplined self.  The man getting A’s is admirable, the woman...it is expected of her and it isn’t a success story, only failing is notable.

Edited January 15, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me, it denigrates women’s efforts.  Think of it as saying women are naturally smarter than men.  Then is a woman getting straight A’s that big of a deal as it comes easy to her, never had to study for tests, etc. while a man who got straight A’s obviously had to work hard, make sacrifices, tame his less disciplined self.

Thanks, that now makes sense!

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Right at the get go, I'm glad there is the plural marriage for those that had a spouse die and remarry so that they can be together. But I also wonder if it's a bit one sided. What about the woman who is a widower and remarries? She isn't afforded the ability to be with both husbands? I'm not asking in an argumentative way BTW. I know your history and how you lost your previous wife, and can see how important that is for you to have the option. 

Thanks for your understanding!

My situation isn't quite the same as that of the young widow you describe. My lovely current wife is sealed to her previous husband (a sterling gent, according to all who knew him), so she and I are not destined to be together forever. I'm sure we'll remain good friends, though. We like to imagine that my late wife and her late husband are friends in the Spirit World!

I agree that it seems a bit one-sided, though, for a widow remarrying. She might have very conflicted feelings, especially if her second husband is a good man and they are together for a long time. My current marriage actually has a little bit of that flavor. Mrs. Stargazer and I are extremely compatible, and she has said in the past that she wishes she had met me before she had met her late husband. And it was actually somewhat possible, since I had plans to attend university in the town she was living -- though circumstances didn't allow it in the end. But even if I had been in her town, there is a 9 year difference in our ages, so I would have been 20-ish when she was 11-ish. A relationship would not have been at all proper!  I do get the impression that she wouldn't mind having both her husbands in eternity. 

The situation with a young widow with children who is looking to have companionship is the one that piques my sympathy. You know how that is -- she's sealed to a dead man, and how many already-sealed young widowers are available out there? Darned few.  The single never-married men who wish to have a temple marriage are going to be put off by her prior sealing.  Her only real choices are those younger men who are divorced or much older ones who are widowed. It's a hard situation to be in.

I knew an elderly couple in my prior ward who were each their second spouse. Both had been sealed to their spouses, but the sister's husband had died early, leaving her with a couple of children to raise alone. The brother's wife had divorced him and left the church. He was worried that without a valid sealing he was going to be alone, since his new wife had a valid prior sealing. I told him that he need not worry, since he had done everything right, and the Lord would not withhold any blessings from him. I think he drew some comfort from that.

 

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I have or had a friend in my previous ward, who probably could care less to speak with me, long story, but ever since my faith transition I guess, anyway, she never married and I'd always hope that she could join a family in the hereafter and be able to have a husband. But in retrospect what if singles can get together and marry in heaven, if we can have plural marriages I wonder why that couldn't be an option, and for women to be with both or triple previous husbands. That's where I think this gets so messy and it's extremely messy in the here and now when members divorce and remarry. 

Yep, that kind of thing would be messy. 

I suspect that there is a good reason why polyandry is not an eternal option. I have no idea what the reason might be, of course.

I've written about the other part of that in this thread, that there absolutely has to be some kind of courting in the Spirit World that leads to marriage. This would be necessary, since proxy marriages between deceased men and women are absolutely necessary in the case of someone who had never heard of Christ in this life, but who accepted Him in the SW. If this person would otherwise be worthy of exaltation, how otherwise could God provide for him or her to have an eternal partner, except by proxy marriage? This is something that would have to be done during the Millennium, of course. In any case, there are plenty of people of both sexes who did not have an opportunity for marriage in this life. Since God has promised that no blessing will be withheld from those who were worthy, it has to be possible. 

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess we'll have to wait and see. What I wanted to say at the first is I don't believe you put women at a lower status at all. I see what you're saying about women and more of them being in the CK top tier and the possible need for polygamy for that reason alone. So just wanted to get that out because that is what I believe about you Stargazer.

I think what Juliann, she can speak for herself, is trying to get at and I apologize if I've read it wrong, is women have been told like forever that more women will be in heaven than men because of their being better at righteousness and somehow it I guess it sort of denigrates them or puts them in their place I guess. I'm sure there is a psychological definition and I need help with that. But just now I reread a post with Eugene England so I am trying to understand I guess. I personally never liked it when men in the ward who would always put women on a pedestal and that bothered me a bit. Like how am I suppose to live up to that!?! 

I'm grateful that you seem to understand me on this topic! 

I'm not sure that's where Juliann is coming from, but for all I know you may be at least partly correct. 

Living up to high expectations can definitely be stressful. After my marriage to Mrs. Stargazer I got quite a bit of scrutiny from her relatives and friends. It was a quick wedding, and she only told her two adult children after the fact! Mine knew it was coming but hers did not, and they were a bit alarmed/upset. What has Mom gone and done? So when I came over to live here in England, they were both very watchful. I didn't blame them. I wasn't on a pedestal, but I was definitely being observed, and measured.

One kind of pedestal thing sometimes occurs for members of the church when they reveal to outsiders what their religion is. I mean, aside from the outsiders that don't like us. I used to be a contract programmer, so would change jobs frequently. Inevitably, and I don't know how, my new coworkers would discover that I was a member of the church and sometimes, after becoming aware of that, I felt like they were watching how I behaved -- like there was some high standard they were expecting. And sometimes they were actually watching! So I had something to live up to. I can see how that could be nerve-wracking. Gotta stay tight with the behavior! No excuses.  No cursing the computer when a program failed! Being sure that people knew I was drinking hot chocolate and not coffee or tea! Annoying.

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Nevertheless, I feel like I need help deciphering what Juliann means. 

 

Well, so do I, to be honest. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 8/1/2020 at 6:06 PM, juliann said:

.........................

So even the Church thinks this verse is only tied to ancient times.

Churches don't think, but some commentator does -- the assigned author(s) of that manual.  The beliefs and practices of this or that culture will vary.  Anthropologists describe and do not prescribe conduct.  What we may find personally shocking and unacceptable, may be quite normal elsewhere -- under other circumstances.  A century from now, people may look back at us and think us to have been exceedingly boorish, shallow, and uncivilized in certain respects.  People can be very judgmental.

[JustAnAustralian]

On the topic of remarried women

Quote

• Deceased women married more than once. You may have a deceased woman sealed to all men to whom she was legally married. However, if she was sealed to a husband during her life, all her husbands must be deceased before she can be sealed to a husband to whom she was not sealed during life.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/members-guide-to-temple-and-family-history-work/chapter-7-providing-temple-ordinances?lang=eng

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

..........................

I think what Juliann, she can speak for herself, is trying to get at and I apologize if I've read it wrong, is women have been told like forever that more women will be in heaven than men because of their being better at righteousness and somehow it I guess it sort of denigrates them or puts them in their place I guess. I'm sure there is a psychological definition and I need help with that. But just now I reread a post with Eugene England so I am trying to understand I guess. I personally never liked it when men in the ward who would always put women on a pedestal and that bothered me a bit. Like how am I suppose to live up to that!?! .................

I agree with you.  Neither men nor women normally feel comfortable on a pedestal -- except for the narcissists.  Hardly anyone can live up to it, if any at all.

As to more women going to heaven than men, I have very serious doubts.  It certainly isn't LDS doctrine.  In fact, there are more male babies than female (about 105 boys to 100 girls).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Living up to high expectations can definitely be stressful.

From what I have seen, there is as much an issue that Mom doing major work (laundry, shopping and cooking, cleaning the home) is just expected rather than appreciated...except when talking to others about it and then there is gushing.  Actually trying to help by looking around and doing ‘her’ chores on a regular basis so that life actually gets easier for her or allows her to do outside the home for herself stuff, actually realizing how much effort it takes and not looking down on her when making a home is all she can manage, including caring for herself and instead she puts on weight after 4 or 5 kids and stops being as social...seen way too much of the opposite behaviors.

[Tacenda]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

From what I have seen, there is as much an issue that Mom doing major work (laundry, shopping and cooking, cleaning the home) is just expected rather than appreciated...except when talking to others about it and then there is gushing.  Actually trying to help by looking around and doing ‘her’ chores on a regular basis so that life actually gets easier for her or allows her to do outside the home for herself stuff, actually realizing how much effort it takes and not looking down on her when making a home is all she can manage, including caring for herself and instead she puts on weight after 4 or 5 kids and stops being as social...seen way too much of the opposite behaviors.

True that!

[juliann]

On 1/3/2021 at 4:16 PM, Stargazer said:

 

I'm pretty well convinced that it will be required of every man who is exalted, because being a particular flavor of sexist, I believe that more women will be worthy of exaltation than men, in the end. And this is not because I'm a greedy little boy who wants as many wives as he can get. I want exactly one wife, the one whose name I know, and if we can be together forever then I will be complete. If I am required to take on more, so be it, but it's not my ambition. By the way, my dear one told me she would be OK with it, if it came to it. 

I think any married man who openly talks of "taking on" other women is on shakey ground in living the revealed gospel. It is disgusting and immoral.

[juliann]

21 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

I suspect that there is a good reason why polyandry is not an eternal option. I have no idea what the reason might be, of course.

 

Oh for heaven's sake. I'm sorry to interrupt your "lucky me, men are sooo speshul" revery but women are sealed to all of their husbands after death.

Quote

D&C 132: 41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, 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.

This is more documentation than you have supplied in all of your meanderings as to your elevated male status. I'll break it down for you in plain English, if a man marries a woman, appointed by a holy annointing, who is currently married, she is not committing adultery. Do you need more explanation? A married woman can "be with another man." Gosh, that is exactly like a married man being with....another woman! Do you really think Joseph would be practicing polyandry without scriptural warrant? That so many can totally ignore this verse is the reason we get so many men confidently announcing they get extra honeys in heaven. Just cause they are so very special that they will be one of the few men exalted, allowing them access to heavenly harems. That this is your personal idea of heaven is beyond sad. 

[Tacenda]

22 hours ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sake. I'm sorry to interrupt your "lucky me, men are sooo speshul" revery but women are sealed to all of their husbands after death.

This is more documentation than you have supplied in all of your meanderings as to your elevated male status. I'll break it down for you in plain English, if a man marries a woman, appointed by a holy annointing, who is currently married, she is not committing adultery. Do you need more explanation? A married woman can "be with another man." Gosh, that is exactly like a married man being with....another woman! Do you really think Joseph would be practicing polyandry without scriptural warrant? That so many can totally ignore this verse is the reason we get so many men confidently announcing they get extra honeys in heaven. Just cause they are so very special that they will be one of the few men exalted, allowing them access to heavenly harems. That this is your personal idea of heaven is beyond sad. 

I wonder how this will work out in the top tier. An article about single LDS women that cannot find a husband and even have to marry outside of the church or have children while single. I guess there's a crisis. So Stargazer might be right but not for the reasons you attribute to him. He's not being giddy about having a bunch of wives, IMO. He's stating what could be fact, of more women than men in the CK. There aren't enough men that are believers in the church, they're falling away faster than women, so more women will be in the CK unless things change. And it's not just the LDS, it's many religions. https://time.com/dateonomics/

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, juliann said:

I think any married man who openly talks of "taking on" other women is on shakey ground in living the revealed gospel. It is disgusting and immoral.

You think that, do you? Well, I think you should re-read Matthew 7:1,2.