Jump to content

News on Plural Marriage


nuclearfuels

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Thank you for reminding me of this. There is a beautiful article written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie that is very clear about it: The Salvation of Little Children

It is also made clear that  the same applies to those born into bodies that never become accountable (e.g. Downs Syndrone).  

I don't know why this escaped me in my previous response.

And of course, as exaltation requires eternal marriage, that will be something handled in the process as well. As Elder McConkie writes in the referenced article:

That goes without saying, and one might even conclude that those children and those suffering major disabilities were of such high consequence in premortality that no Earthlife-test was necessary, but I'm not sure how that works.  I simply have faith and trust that it is so.  Naturally, I expect those people to appear fully developed as adult gods, and I expect a wonderful moment when they embrace their mothers, fathers, and brothers & sisters at the First Resurrection.  Tears of joy will be freely shed.  I'm shedding some now just thinking about it.

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But there's nothing here that suggests that God will somehow arrange that the ratio of males to females in the highest degree of the celestrial kingdom will be strictly 50/50, as has been suggested in this thread...........

I still feel that more women will be worthy of exaltation than men. Nobody has convinced me otherwise. This is not to put women on a pedestal, despite what anyone here thinks. As said, women are going to be tested just as hard as men, and will be judged on the same basis. I just believe that more women will succeed in the test leading to exaltation. So sue me, ye who are offended by this.

I think that the principle of handicapping applies here just as it does in golf and horse racing, and for similar reasons.  Of course, I don't know the end from the beginning.  God hasn't shown it to me, but I trust that He will be fair and impartial, as only He can be.  I find it very hard to believe that God would place a curse on one gender (pick your preferred gender) and fail to judge fairly.

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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

Many have said different? Here in this thread? I don't think so. Maybe out in the world, among the spiritually ignorant.

Exactly.

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I guess I can understand why Romney would say that, as it has always been the tendency of men who hold women in high esteem to regard them as better than themselves. There's a reason why the phrase "my better half" is commonly used to apply to one's wife, at least in Anglo culture. And I've never heard a wife complaining about being referred to in this way.

But George isn't going to get to heaven courtesy of his wife's robe. His assurance of heaven (i.e. salvation) is entirely on his Savior's merits, not his own nor his wife's; his exaltation depends upon himself. But in all this, I don't think he was trying to elucidate gospel doctrine. I think he was simply praising the merits of his wife in public. I've heard other husbands praising their wives, too, it's not unusual among men of understanding. Of course none of us have wives who are perfect.......................

George was always anxiously engaged in a good cause.  He was a tough,  stand-up guy whom I greatly respected in my youth.  I was so proud that he withstood the boohs from the hostile crowd at the 1964 Republican National Convention when he called for a civil rights plank for the Republican Presidential Platform.  I was outside demonstrating with Dr King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) as they shouted him down inside  I'm sure that Dr King recognized George as a fellow citizen with the Saints of God.  This is, after all, MLK Day, and a good time to recall the accomplishments of good men -- all of whom were flawed in some way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
On 1/15/2021 at 5:06 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

there are more male babies than female (about 105 boys to 100 girls).

True, but males die off early so in a few years the numbers are about even and a few years later on the ratio is reversed. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

True, but males die off early so in a few years the numbers are about even and a few years later on the ratio is reversed. 

The point I believe he was making was early deaths mean exaltations...more males dying before 8 means more males exalted through that process, based on that fact.  There may be other factors that raise numbers for one sex or the other, but as far as I am aware those suggested are subjective judgments on the spiritual value of certain behaviour that may or may not be relevant.

Given we believe opportunities not available in the lifetime will be available in the next, adult men marrying less than women in some cultures seems unlikely to me to be a factor.

Edited by Calm
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 1/17/2021 at 12:05 PM, Stargazer said:

Not that you need me, a disgusting man, to give you advice, but in my opinion you'd make a much better advocate for your position if you left off with the whining snarkiness. If it makes you feel better, fine, but that's all it is going to get you. You could also leave off with putting words in people's mouths, and making wild assumptions about what other they think. 

 

I never said you were disgusting. That is the second time you have played victim while preaching false doctrine.

Quote

The multiple sealing thing is not news.  I myself have submitted (and stood proxy in) quite a number of these. One of my great grandmothers was married twice, and so I had her sealed to both her husbands. Who will she be sealed to in the end? Don't know. It's up to the Lord how it will end up, and His judgement is just. Just because women are sealed to all her husbands after death doesn't mean we're practicing polyandry. We're just covering all bases.

Sure. When it comes to us lower status women sealings merely "covering bases" rather than seal us to our husbands like men are sealed to their wives. It could only be because sealings are only valid when done for men. I can't think of any other reason why sealings would be considered meaningless merely because they are ordinances that benefit women as they do men. Can't have that. 

 

Quote

My current wife is sealed to her late husband. I'm married to her now. So, of course she can "be with another man" and it's OK.  

 OK, I'll play! According to you and D&C 132 she is committing adultery unless you guys had a special annointing. But you know darn well what that verse means and what polyandry means. 

 

Quote

Your use of the term "heavenly harems" is revealing as to the state of your understanding. I wish you wouldn't project your feelings onto other people like this. You assume that because I understand the scriptures in the way I do, that I am some kind of insatiable satyr. As to what is sad, your assumption about my personal idea of heaven is very sad. You have no idea who I really am, nor what I really think in my heart of hearts. You take what I have written and run off in directions that are completely false and unwarranted.

You are on a Mormon message board preaching that exalted men will "be given" more women in the eternities. That is false doctrine. Our current position is clear. You are out of bounds and in violation of board rules by refusing to document your nonsense. 

 

Quote

In connection with things as they really are, and as they really will be, in my present state of knowledge I wish some things would be otherwise than they appear. For example, I'd love to be convinced that in the state of exaltation a man will have one, and only one wife. I want only one, and I hope that is what I get. But sadly, the scriptures suggest that I might not get what I prefer.  And if you think that my understanding of the scriptures means I'm looking forward to my seventy virgins, that's your problem, not mine.

Well, they don't "appear" as you wish they did. Which means you can at any moment be convinced that your false doctrine is false. But you choose not to. So don't try to pretend that you aren't loving your imagined glory surrounded by a bevy of excess women (I mean, they have to do something with us, right?)who are "given" to exalted you. 

 

Quote

But don't let my protestations sway you in your opinions. I'm sure you won't.

Here's the thing. The opinions are all yours. The rest of us listen to modern prophets.

Link to post
On 1/17/2021 at 12:13 PM, Stargazer said:

Pedestals are very uncomfortable for those of us with humility, anyway. Falling off is so easy.

I don't think that it is LDS doctrine -- but there are plenty of true things that aren't. There is certainly a strong implication that there will be more women than men. Just because more boys are born than girls does not mean that more men will be exalted than women, either. In this connection, it's a fairly meaningless statistic. More boys die in childhood than girls -- the overrepresentation in births is most likely a compensation for the disparity in childhood survival.

You are aware that children don't have to survive to receive exaltation. Could you have possibly missed that fundamental bit of theology in your eagerness to acquire more women?

It must be exceedingly aggravating that not all women will sit quietly while men pontificate about one man being the equivalent of multiple women in a relationship. Bummer, eh? The 50's were soooo much better, right?

But your time is up. No more of this uninterrupted misogynistic balderdash. Your once uninterrupted dream world depends on one thing and one thing only, numbers. Numbers aren't opinions or beliefs. 

CFR that there will be billions more of exalted women than men. Then we can get to the fun part of your fantasy....how many women does it take to exalt one man? We need to know how many excess women are required so angels can start raiding other universes for you guys.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
12 minutes ago, juliann said:

You are aware that children don't have to survive to receive exaltation. Could you have possibly missed that fundamental bit of theology in your eagerness to acquire more women?

It must be exceedingly aggravating that not all women will sit quietly while men pontificate about one man being the equivalent of multiple women in a relationship. Bummer, eh? The 50's were soooo much better, right?

But your time is up. No more of this uninterrupted misogynistic balderdash. Your once uninterrupted dream world depends on one thing and one thing only, numbers. Numbers aren't opinions or beliefs. 

CFR that there will be billions more of exalted women than men. Then we can get to the fun part of your fantasy....how many women does it take to exalt one man? We need to know how many excess women are required so angels can start raiding other universes for you guys.

CFR that Stargazer said the bold please. I didn't see it. 

Juliann, he even mentioned he only wanted one wife, didn't he? His first wife will be his wife in the hereafter, and his second wife is sealed to her first husband. I think I've seen several times that people can marry for time only in the temple, or maybe they had a civil one. @Stargazer?

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

Sure. When it comes to us lower status women sealings merely "covering bases" rather than seal us to our husbands like men are sealed to their wives. It could only be because sealings are only valid when done for men. I can't think of any other reason why sealings would be considered meaningless merely because they are ordinances that benefit women as they do men. Can't have that. 

The mere fact that in terms of priesthood ordinances woman take their husbands name shows why they won't be permanent as does the wording of the sealing ceremony.  The very existence of family named, patriarchal blessings, and birthright blessings as gospel doctrine provide ample evidence.

You can play the cultural argument if you like but I'll stick with priesthood precedent.  I'm sorry but regardless of what bases are covered by sealings I don't believe for a second that the day won't come when a single husband will be selected for each wife.  I don't believe eternal polyandry will ever exist.  I guess we'll have to wait and see which of us is correct.

Quote

OK, I'll play! According to you and D&C 132 she is committing adultery unless you guys had a special annointing. But you know darn well what that verse means and what polyandry means. 

That verse has nothing to do with the sealing ceremony and relates to the second anointing.  And if she was sealed for time to her second husband there's no issue.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to post
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:
8 hours ago, longview said:

Moses 5:24

24 For from this time forth thou (Cain) shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.

I'm obviously talking about all of us who came to this Earth, and you should understand that.  I am not talking about those who voted No and were cast out with Satan.  The constant lie and false doctrine spread by racists was that there were fence-sitters, and that is an enormous, self-serving lie by those who haven't got the spirit of Christ.

Cain was not a fence-sitter.  He agreed to the Plan of Salvation before he got here.  Then he turned traitor while on this Earth.  Anyone can make that choice now, a choice they did not make in the pre-mortal existence.  This life is a test.  The final test.

I suppose the BARE minimum is that Cain did NOT reject the opportunity to be born into mortality and acquire a physical body.  But the essential point of the scripture is that Cain was Perdition BEFORE he was born!  I don't know exactly what that means.  Did Cain not cause enough ruckus for him to be expelled out of Heaven along with Lucifer and his hosts?  Maybe Cain did love Lucifer in the pre-existence BUT was wise enough to understand the benefits of having a body and its eventual resurrection?

The Lord also said that Cain will RULE over Satan.  I suppose primarily because Cain will have a resurrected body but Satan and his hosts will remain spirits forever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
23 minutes ago, longview said:

I suppose the BARE minimum is that Cain did NOT reject the opportunity to be born into mortality and acquire a physical body.  But the essential point of the scripture is that Cain was Perdition BEFORE he was born!  I don't know exactly what that means.  Did Cain not cause enough ruckus for him to be expelled out of Heaven along with Lucifer and his hosts?  Maybe Cain did love Lucifer in the pre-existence BUT was wise enough to understand the benefits of having a body and its eventual resurrection?

The Lord also said that Cain will RULE over Satan.  I suppose primarily because Cain will have a resurrected body but Satan and his hosts will remain spirits forever.

I suppose we could say the same of a number of important apostates, including Judas, but that is not because they rejected the Plan of Salvation in the Grand Council.  As the brother of Jesus himself says, the demons believe in God (James 2:19).  So faith is not enough.  Actions speak much louder.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suppose we could say the same of a number of important apostates, including Judas, but that is not because they rejected the Plan of Salvation in the Grand Council.  As the brother of Jesus himself says, the demons believe in God (James 2:19).  So faith is not enough.  Actions speak much louder.

What are your thoughts on the Lord's statement that Cain was Perdition BEFORE he was born?

Link to post

“Fencesitter” means someone takes a position of neutrality.  How is that relevant to being called “Perdition”?

Link to post
Just now, Calm said:

“Fencesitter” means someone takes a position of neutrality.  How is that relevant to being called “Perdition”?

It was NOT implied that Cain was a "Fencesitter".  The Focus is on Cain being called Perdition BEFORE he was born.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, longview said:

What are your thoughts on the Lord's statement that Cain was Perdition BEFORE he was born?

Those were my thoughts on that question, even with perdition in living color.  I do comment on both Satan and perdition in my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 3), online at  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JFkjadf1cA1WEdiYUzWYaE2tkCEQTtH3/view?usp=sharing

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Those were my thoughts on that question, even with perdition in living color.  I do comment on both Satan and perdition in my “Śaṭan: Notes on the Gods,” 2012 (version 3), online at  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JFkjadf1cA1WEdiYUzWYaE2tkCEQTtH3/view?usp=sharing

How do you account for Cain being allowed to enter mortality despite being called Perdition in the pre-existence?

Link to post
1 minute ago, longview said:

How do you account for Cain being allowed to enter mortality despite being called Perdition in the pre-existence?

Claiming that he was perdition in premortality may simply be a notion retrojected based on later performance.  Did God know that he would apostatize?  Jesus knew that Judas would do likewise, but only in this life.  Does God know the full nature of everything we will do in this life even before we are sent here?  So then we are only sent here to find out what is already certain?  No real freedom of choice?  Can we justly be punished for doing what we must do? Many physicists maintain that there is no free will.  That we are predetermined in all aspects of our lives, even to the smallest atom.  That the universe is completely deterministic.  Is that your belief also?

Link to post
12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Claiming that he was perdition in premortality may simply be a notion retrojected based on later performance.  Did God know that he would apostatize?  Jesus knew that Judas would do likewise, but only in this life.  Does God know the full nature of everything we will do in this life even before we are sent here?  So then we are only sent here to find out what is already certain?  No real freedom of choice?  Can we justly be punished for doing what we must do? Many physicists maintain that there is no free will.  That we are predetermined in all aspects of our lives, even to the smallest atom.  That the universe is completely deterministic.  Is that your belief also?

No, not what I believe.  It appears you are evading the question, which is that Cain was known as Perdition in the pre-existence.  Most likely other Heavenly Beings knew that of Cain.  My belief is that none of us but the very few understood completely all the ramifications of the Plan of Happiness (with all the dynamics).  Mortality was necessary for us to sort it all out, to find out what we are really committed to doing, what we are willing to sacrifice.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

“Fencesitter” means someone takes a position of neutrality.  How is that relevant to being called “Perdition”?

I think the point being made is perhaps not everyone who comes to earth accepted the full plan of the gospel premortally.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The mere fact that in terms of priesthood ordinances woman take their husbands name shows why they won't be permanent as does the wording of the sealing ceremony.  The very existence of family named, patriarchal blessings, and birthright blessings as gospel doctrine provide ample evidence.

 

What a weird appeal to "proof." Whatever name a woman takes is totally cultural. 

Quote

You can play the cultural argument if you like but I'll stick with priesthood precedent.  I'm sorry but regardless of what bases are covered by sealings I don't believe for a second that the day won't come when a single husband will be selected for each wife.  I don't believe eternal polyandry will ever exist.  I guess we'll have to wait and see which of us is correct.

Or we can take modern prophets and small things like the Proclamation on the Family at their word. 

Quote

That verse has nothing to do with the sealing ceremony and relates to the second anointing.  And if she was sealed for time to her second husband there's no issue.

CFR.  Baloney. No one knows what it actually means, only that something called a special annointing was required for a woman to acquire another husband. 

We know you are a fundamentalist, you really should give a disclaimer when you state your "beliefs."

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, juliann said:

Whatever name a woman takes is totally cultural. 

That hadn’t occurred to me before. I would like to see how things are done in countries where women don’t change their name at marriage. 

Link to post
26 minutes ago, Calm said:

That hadn’t occurred to me before. I would like to see how things are done in countries where women don’t change their name at marriage. 

I wonder if there is anything in the church that prohibits female members from keeping their maiden names. I bet not. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

CFR.  Baloney. No one knows what it actually means, only that something called a special annointing was required for a woman to acquire another husband. 


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.


We know exactly what it means.  It's a matter of the historical record if you bother to look.  Here's a few quotes ranging 80 years of Church history.  Clearly a known thing. And there are many more.

  •  "President Young said when a woman was anointed a Queen to a good man and he died & the woman was sealed to another man for time it was not necessary for her to be anointed a Queen again but if she was anointed a Queen to a man who was not worthy of a wife & she is sealed to another man she should be anointed a Queen unto him. When a good man dies & his wives have not been anointed Queens unto him they may be anointed Queens to him after his death without any Proxy."Wilford Woodruff Journal Dec 26, 1866.
     
  • During Wilford Woodruff's administration, the rule was "not to permit a woman to be anointed to a man unless she had lived with him as his wife."  Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith to John D . T. McAllister, 14 April 1900, Lorenzo Snow Letterpress Book, Confidential Research Files
     
  • "Thirteen of the 32 General Authorities have not had theirs and at least two others who have had them with their first wives have later wives not yet anointed to their husbands." George F. Richards, Journal
     
  • Heber's wife was then anointed "a Queen & Priestess unto her husband" and received the same blessing as he did. Book of Anointings, 8 Jan. 1846
     
Quote

We know you are a fundamentalist, you really should give a disclaimer when you state your "beliefs."

Hardly.  Just because I believe in the gospel as restored through Joseph Smith and have actually studied it and Church history (as above) I get labelled a fundamentalist.  Don't blame me if you don't like the history of our Church.


Fundamentalists have no priesthood authority, the apostleship is in the Church.  Even if those apostles have altered the restored gospel.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to post
25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:


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.
We know exactly what it means.  It's a matter of the historical record if you bother to look.

  •  "President Young said when a woman was anointed a Queen to a good man and he died & the woman was sealed to another man for time it was not necessary for her to be anointed a Queen again but if she was anointed a Queen to a man who was not worthy of a wife & she is sealed to another man she should be anointed a Queen unto him. When a good man dies & his wives have not been anointed Queens unto him they may be anointed Queens to him after his death without any Proxy."Wilford Woodruff Journal Dec 26, 1866.
     
  • During Wilford Woodruff's administration, the rule was "not to permit a woman to be anointed to a man unless she had lived with him as his wife."  Lorenzo Snow, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith to John D . T. McAllister, 14 April 1900, Lorenzo Snow Letterpress Book, Confidential Research Files
     
  • "Thirteen of the 32 General Authorities have not had theirs and at least two others who have had them with their first wives have later wives not yet anointed to their husbands." George F. Richards, Journal
     
  • Heber's wife was then anointed "a Queen & Priestess unto her husband" and received the same blessing as he did. Book of Anointings, 8 Jan. 1846
     

Hardly.  Just because I believe in the gospel as restored through Joseph Smith and have actually studied it and Church history (as above) I get labelled a fundamentalist.
Fundamentalists have no priesthood authority, the apostleship is in the Church.  Even if those apostles have altered the restored gospel.

Uh huh

Now document that those unrelated quotes that also use the common word "annointing" are relevant to 132.  Scholars have been unable to determine what it means. Then get back to the topic and document that whatever the annointing was, it is relevant to the very clear statement that a woman can be with another man without committing adultery. Which is the point, not a definition of annointing, as was happening when JS practiced polyandry. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

That hadn’t occurred to me before. I would like to see how things are done in countries where women don’t change their name at marriage. 

Lots of women in the US don't change their names. It seems rather odd to seal a phantom name to another person.  I understand that the church software has difficulty accepting different names but church records aren't legal documents. Marriages are. I'd be very interested if the church was putting out legal marriage documents using made up names. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Uh huh

Now document that those unrelated quotes that also use the common word "annointing" are relevant to 132.  Scholars have been unable to determine what it means. Then get back to the topic and document that whatever the annointing was, it is relevant to the very clear statement that a woman can be with another man without committing adultery. Which is the point, not a definition of annointing, as was happening when JS practiced polyandry. 

This is why I rarely engage with your comments.  God himself couldn't tell you that you're wrong.  There is only one recorded ordinance in the history of the Church where a woman is anointed to a man as referenced in that verse.  And that makes that verse clearly explained.

As for Joseph's polyandry, none of those women had received second anointings at that time so the verse didn't yet apply.

Link to post
43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This is why I rarely engage with your comments.  God himself couldn't tell you that you're wrong.  There is only one recorded ordinance in the history of the Church where a woman is anointed to a man as referenced in that verse.  And that makes that verse clearly explained.

As for Joseph's polyandry, none of those women had received second anointings at that time so the verse didn't yet apply.

Oh for heaven's SAKE. That is a new one though....verses that "don't apply yet." LOL

Like I said, CFR.  Let's see if God has told the scholars yet. 

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...