New Book on Polygamy

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Meaning?

God will forgive whom he will forgive, but we are required to forgive everyone. Are there limits beyond which we don’t have to forgive?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Well, of course, but I think you know what I mean, right? Those children are covered by the Atonement, too. How deep do you think  the Atonement goes? 

I honestly have no idea what you meant, and I'm still not sure.

[Bernard Gui]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I honestly have no idea what you meant, and I'm still not sure.

Someone made the comment that we “baptize everyone” and let the chips fall where they may, or something to that effect. I said that “baptize everyone” raises a question about how deep the Atonement goes. You pointed out that we don’t baptize everyone because we don’t baptize for children who die before the age of eight. I said of course, but I thought you might have understood what I said without that clarification.  Sorry for the confusion. 

We have been harshly criticized for performing baptisms for notoriously bad people. Is the Atonement not deep enough for them? Or should we perform their baptisms and let the chips fall where they may?

Edited August 3, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Someone made the comment that we “baptize everyone” and let the chips fall where they may, or something to that effect. I said that “baptize everyone” raises a question about how deep the Atonement goes. You pointed out that we don’t baptize everyone because we don’t baptize for children who die before the age of eight. I said of course, but I thought you might have understood what I said without that clarification.  Sorry for the confusion. 

We have been harshly criticized for performing baptisms for notoriously bad people. Is the Atonement not deep enough for them? Or should we perform their baptisms and let the chips fall where they may?

Got it.  I agree, the baptism goes deep enough for everyone.  Our Sunday school teacher quoted a church leader (who I can't remember now) who talked about how they felt sorry for Hitler (I believe this quote was from right after WWII ended).  He was expressing the idea that the Atonement goes even that deep.

I'm behind the curve but I watched season 1, episode 4 of The Chosen last night (HIGHLY recommend that series) and at the end Jesus tells Peter that He is calling him to be a fisher of men, to bring in as many people as he can, of every kind.  And that He will sort them out later.   

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Got it.  I agree, the baptism goes deep enough for everyone.  Our Sunday school teacher quoted a church leader (who I can't remember now) who talked about how they felt sorry for Hitler (I believe this quote was from right after WWII ended).  He was expressing the idea that the Atonement goes even that deep.

I'm behind the curve but I watched season 1, episode 4 of The Chosen last night (HIGHLY recommend that series) and at the end Jesus tells Peter that He is calling him to be a fisher of men, to bring in as many people as he can, of every kind.  And that He will sort them out later.   

Thanks. Let the chips fall where they may and ignore the naysayers.

I wasn’t going to mention H——- because of Godwin’s Law. So, it looks like you loose! Haha!  😉

[bluebell]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. Let the chips fall where they may and ignore the naysayers.

I wasn’t going to mention H——- because of Godwin’s Law. So, it looks like you loose! Haha!  😉

I'm not afraid of Nemesis.   

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Someone made the comment that we “baptize everyone” and let the chips fall where they may, or something to that effect. I said that “baptize everyone” raises a question about how deep the Atonement goes. You pointed out that we don’t baptize everyone because we don’t baptize for children who die before the age of eight. I said of course, but I thought you might have understood what I said without that clarification.  Sorry for the confusion. 

We have been harshly criticized for performing baptisms for notoriously bad people. Is the Atonement not deep enough for them? Or should we perform their baptisms and let the chips fall where they may?

Your use of the term deep is confusing. Could you define that. Do you mean extensive?  How powerful?

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Your use of the term deep is confusing. Could you define that. Do you mean extensive?  How powerful?

We have been harshly criticized for performing baptisms for notoriously bad people. Is the Atonement not deep enough for them? Or should we perform even their baptisms and let the chips fall where they may?

Edited August 3, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

We have been harshly criticized for performing baptisms for notoriously bad people. Is the Atonement not deep enough for them? Or should we perform their baptisms and everyone else’s and let the chips fall where they may?

Please stop using “deep” and find a synonym because “deep” doesn’t make sense to me in this context and I am having to guess what you mean by it. It is coming across to me like saying Is the Atonement not turquoise enough for them. I need more detail to get a grip on your usage. 
 

Obviously others get what you are saying, so I appreciate  I am asking for extra work from you. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please stop using “deep” and find a synonym because “deep” doesn’t make sense to me in this context and I am having to guess what you mean by it. It is coming across to me like saying Is the Atonement not turquoise enough for them. I need more detail to get a grip on your usage. 
 

Obviously others get what you are saying, so I appreciate  I am asking for extra work from you. 

I'm interpreting "deep" to mean "powerful"

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm interpreting "deep" to mean "powerful"

I was pretty sure, but wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing nuance. Thank you. 

[Bernard Gui]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Please stop using “deep” and find a synonym because “deep” doesn’t make sense to me in this context and I am having to guess what you mean by it. It is coming across to me like saying Is the Atonement not turquoise enough for them. I need more detail to get a grip on your usage. 
 

Obviously others get what you are saying, so I appreciate  I am asking for extra work from you. 

Sorry for the confusion. By deep I mean extending far below the surface or penetrating, profound, bottomless.

Does the Atonement penetrate to the most profoundly evil depth of humanity, or does it bottom out at some point? Not talking about Sons of Perdition. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

All encompassing in my view. The only way we won’t receive it is if we knowingly turn our back on it.   How else could we become perfect?

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

All encompassing in my view. The only way we won’t receive it is if we knowingly turn our back on it.   How else could we become perfect?

Well, ok. I was thinking of those who plumbed the depths of depravity, but all-encompassing if you wish. 🙂

Like I said, not talking about Sons of Perdition, but really bad folks for whose baptisms we have been roundly booed. They even have photocopies of The H man’s baptism and sealing.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

was thinking those who plumbed the depths of depravity,

Okay, now I get the connection.  Had three hours sleep and distracted by family stuff, so apparently slow today. 
 

Think if the dog stays quiet long enough I will pass out for a bit. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Okay, now I get the connection.  Had three hours sleep and distracted by family stuff, so apparently slow today. 
 

Think if the dog stays quiet long enough I will pass out for a bit. 

Family stuff is a bear sometimes. Hope you get some peaceful rest.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Family stuff is a bear sometimes. Hope you get some peaceful rest.

I got distraction so far. Almost as good. And probably better if I have a chance of sleeping tonight…but given it is the middle of summer, fat chance on that one. Tomorrow is nothing, so likely sleep then. 
 

You all get to put up with my rambling tonight, but that is hardly new. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

I find this to be one of the most interesting posts I have ever read in almost four years on this forum. I appreciate your candor in posting it. You seem to take some assurance in the fact that The Father and I assume Christ, will "deal with the cleanup at the end." If you didn't do any of this proxy work, wouldn't Christ and the Father work it out with the individual person anyway with absolute justice and mercy?

The "cleanup" I spoke about did not deal with proxy baptism. It dealt with the sealing of husbands and wives (and by implication, children to parents). When proxy marriage sealing work for a deceased person is performed, it is customary to seal them to every marriage partner they had in life. But ultimately, in the kingdom of God, a woman can only be sealed in eternity to one man, regardless of how many she was married to in life. A man might be sealed to every woman he was married to, but what if one or more of them were sealed to another man? Who goes with whom? This is where God does the "cleanup". In the end, His judgment and mercy orders those matters which are in doubt.

It is different when it comes to baptism of water and spirit. The Lord was very clear when he spoke to Nicodemus:

John 3:5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

The work must be done in order for the person to enter the kingdom of God. The Lord has never at any time said anything to indicate that there were to be exceptions; nobody gets into God's kingdom without this ordinance.  Whether in this life, or by proxy by someone acting on their behalf after this life, the ordinance must be performed . Of course, acceptance of the ordinance by person for whom it was done is entirely up to them.

There are plenty of people who lived and died on earth for whom there is no surviving record of their existence, and who never heard of Christ in this life. We cannot now do the work for these people, but according to Christ's emphatic word, they must also receive baptism by water and by spirit. The justice and mercy of God in connection with the work of necessary ordinances for these people will be done during the Millennium, when the records of Heaven will be revealed to those who live during that time, so that those unknown people have the same chance we all have. We believe that that is a major purpose of the Millennium, to see to the saving ordinances of all who have lived and died without record, and who have accepted the Gospel in the Spirit World. 

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

In LDS eschatology, don't Heavenly Father and Christ have agency at the judgment? Does your proxy work or the lack of it restrict their choices or decisions for any one individual person? Certainly if an LDS priesthood holder has authority, God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have authority to make decisions, no? Since, in your belief system they are the ultimate fount or source of your authority, keys, etc., doesn't that imply that they have ultimate agency over that authority?

Of course they have agency at the judgment. But by the time a person comes up for judgment, the person to be judged will have either accepted or rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And according to the mandate we've been given (which I alluded to above) there will be no exceptions in the matter of whether or not proxy ordinances had been performed in their behalf. Every child of God will have his or her work done, and will have the opportunity to accept or reject it. Then and only then will they be judged. It won't be necessary for God to hand out an exception because for some unaccountable reason, someone forgot to do the needed proxy work. 

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

One of us might believe in a wideness in God's mercy, while the other believes in a narrowness in God's mercy. That is fine, but does God not have absolute discretion over His mercy and judgment? Even in His human life here on earth in his non-glorified pre-resurrection existence, Christ dispensed mercy and judgment on folks as he saw fit, did He not? Will he not do that at the final judgment?

If God allows one person to enter the kingdom of God without having done the requirements He Himself laid out (e.g. water and spirit baptism), but requires it of another, does this not make God a respecter of persons?

Do you believe that Christ dispensed mercy and judgment on folks in some arbitrary fashion, blessing some and cursing others based on his mood at the time? A just God rewards those who obey Him. And those who do not obey Him will not be rewarded. If He does otherwise then there is no justice. Mercy is available for those who have disobeyed, but only upon condition of repentance. And those who do not repent will not be rewarded. If you cannot depend upon God to be consistent, then you have a changeable God. And a changeable God is not God.

"[I]n his non-glorified pre-resurrection existence" Christ taught living people His gospel, and preached obedience to God, and repentance for disobedience. He performed miracles for and healed those who had faith. He wasn't there to judge. Nobody whom Christ came into contact with during his mortal ministry was ever judged by Him. That's because judgement comes at the end.

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Teancum said:

So what happens if there are more men than women? Will women take multiple husbands?

Silly question, but sure, why not?

 

 

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“Baptize everyone” raises the question, how deep does the Atonement go?

The Atonement goes as deep as repentance.

Those who are baptized but do not repent, have only taken a short bath. Atonement cannot penetrate any deeper than repentance.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But ultimately, in the kingdom of God, a woman can only be sealed in eternity to one man, regardless of how many she was married to in life

CFR from current policy book please. Or state it as your interpretation…a very, very common one that was in the past published in manuals, but I don’t believe is now. 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Silly question, but sure, why not?

 

 

Why silly?  Why is this silly and it is not silly to talk of more women in the CK?  Or were you being silly when you expressed your opinion on that?

Edited August 3, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR from current policy book please. Or state it as your interpretation…a very, very common one that was in the past published in manuals, but I don’t believe is now. 

Current Church Handbook

38.4.1.3 Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death

      Women. After a living woman has been sealed to a husband in the temple, she may not be sealed again unless she receives a cancellation of the first sealing.

      Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a sealing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she died (see 38.4.1.2 for the policy in cases of divorce).

 

Since this is official Church policy any sealings performed that violate this (unless they have a First Presidency approval I suppose) would be considered unauthorized by the one holding the keys.  And therefore invalid.

Edited August 3, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

What if there are more men worthy of exaltation than women though?  Then the entire polygamy puzzle falls apart.

I really appreciate you taking the time to write this all out and share your thoughts on it.  And as I said before, I don't personally struggle with the doctrine of polygamy.  But having the whole reason for polygamy be based on an unsupported opinion that women are more spiritual than men seems like really sandy ground to be standing on.  It could be true.  But it could just as easily be false.  

I've been on this planet for approaching 70 years. I'm nowhere near what I would consider to be an "elder statesman", and I am just as prone as anyone else to make some kinds of mistakes. I can be and have been wrong about many things. But in my observation, women are generally more spiritual than men. Overall, in my observation, women tend to be kinder, more understanding, and a number of other positive virtues, than men. Naturally there are plenty of exceptions. However, none of these things necessarily translate into exaltability, to coin a word. That is a separate question. But even there, the proposition that there might be more men worthy of exaltation than women, is in the category of absurd propositions, to me, at least. 

Is it sandy ground? Probably. 

But the whole reason for plural marriage is not my assertion of the relative exaltability of men and women. The whole reason is God's law regarding the matter. His designs and purposes take precedence at all times. 

I'm just trying to give what I consider a reasonable explanation for why. You're welcome to think it unreasonable. 

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Current Church Handbook

38.4.1.3 Sealing of Living Members after a Spouse’s Death

      Women. After a living woman has been sealed to a husband in the temple, she may not be sealed again unless she receives a cancellation of the first sealing.

      Men. If a husband and wife have been sealed and the wife dies, the man may have another woman sealed to him if she is not already sealed to another man. In this circumstance, the man does not need a sealing clearance from the First Presidency unless he was divorced from his previous wife before she died (see 38.4.1.2 for the policy in cases of divorce).

 

So where is it stated that women after death will only be married to one man in the eternities and all other sealings will be meaningless?